Talk:Determinism

Determinism and ethics

To argue that determinism negates morality is akin to arguing that determinism negates sex. Determinism can present no argument as to why we should or shouldn't feel emotionally compelled to behave in a certain way, it only points out that our feeling compelled to behave in any way is the result of heredity and environment and not "free will". This renders moral responsibility meaningless but not morality itself. The idea of morality being meaningful or meaningless is a value judgement and a question for philosophers, not scientists or 'logic'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.57.17 (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, i agree that morality doesn't become meaningless with determinism. In fact, determinism doesn't change anything! All we need to do is redefine "free will" as just "will". It doesn't make a difference at all because no one can even explain "free will"!Mehfoos (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

A mind experiment

Here's a mind experiment that i came up with, which i believe is better suited to proving Determinism than Laplace's demon: We make two exact clones of a person- let it be "A" and "B". We send the exact signals through their 5 senses for a long period of time- a few years, maybe. We subject them to exact physical conditions such as temperature humidity, etc all this while. Now, when this is being done...or to make it an easier thing to imagine: if we send some signals through their senses that provoke a reaction- the reaction from both the samples will be the same. The basic message i tend to convey is this- there is absolutely nothing magical that happens in this world. It is only rational that every event is the only possible scientifically compatible consequence of previous events. It is perfectly rational.Mehfoos (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Paradox on Laplace's demon

"Would not knowledge of the predicted future allow one to change the predicted future (simply by consciously avoiding predictions), therefore invalidating the original predicted future and revealing determinism to be an inaccurate basis for prediction?"

Not really. If the original prediction was correct, it would have taken this into account. So if there is any deviation between the prediction and the actual outcome, then that means that the prediction was wrong. 12.10.248.51 (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

beats the heck out of me. imagine an all-knowledgeable machine telling the future, e.g. that you will be at your friend's house in two hours. is the machine broke? it is supposed to tell the truth. so pretending it tells the truth, what holds you back "breaking the fate" and going somewhere else instead? I've talked about the paradox at the following places:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Determinism#Looking_into_the_future

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Laplace%27s_demon#Another_argument_against_Laplace.27s_demon

as I understand it, a concrete example is needed. "what could possibly be foretold, that could not consciously be avoided?" Twipley (talk) 07:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The true basis for the theory is that what will happen is what is going to happen and you cant do a damn thing about it. Take into account this hypothetical situation. A prediction is made saying the world will end. Does you knowing the world will end change the fate of the world? The world is tied together and everyones actions are connected. Cloudblazer (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

But what if I have the machine in my possession. And I ask it where I will be in two hours. Will I be able to change fate? But I shouldn't be able to, because the machine I have in my possession is not supposed to be flawed. See the paradox? Twipley (talk) 07:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the paradox results from you giving the machine a causal role in your choice. It's like this. Suppose I build a machine to predict the future and I tell it "I am going to buy either a black bucket or a white bucket. I want you to predict which one it is, and I will then choose the opposite."

The machine can't possibly give you a correct answer because your choice is dependent on the machine's answer.

The machine still knows the correct answer, but it can't tell you while you haven't made the choice as that represents new information that changes the outcome. So suppose the machine says "black", it knows you will buy a white bucket because of that, but it's not a paradox of determinism, it's a paradox that stems from the way you're framing the problem. Think about it this way: if the machine tells you you will buy a black bucket, and you then buy a white bucket or don't buy a bucket to prove it wrong, you're still in a deterministic path where the choices you make are the product of earlier events.

Your actual choice - to visit your friend or not, to buy a black or white bucket - is going to be the result of your psychological makeup - your desire to see your friend versus your desire to prove you have free will - and the machine would be able to predict the outcome. It just can't tell you because as soon as it tells you, the new information determines a new outcome, so the act of telling makes the prediction out of date.

But for all that, I still think the idea of free will is relevant because we will probably never have enough information to make predictions to any level of relevant accuracy. If you could measure every variable when you rolled a dice you would not have any reason to bet on any number but the winning one, but as long as the situation is too complex for us to fully understand, we can make meaningful choices. 152.91.9.219 (talk) 03:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

hmmmm, that's nice talk. reminds me of that "problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them." if i ever get more insight on the problem, i'll be sure to post here and let you know. by the way, for the ones interested, some more chat on the matter can be found on my talk page. Twipley (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This is simply the liar paradox in disguise and is troubling in virtue of that, not in virtue of being a problem for determinismIncompetnce (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand why people don't get the point. The point is: "You cannot make such a machine". Simple as that! What was Heisenberg's principle all about? There is no way we can predict even the exact location and momentum of an electron. And electron is not even one of the fundamental particles that we know of. There can never be any technology ever (future-proof) developed to do that. Hence the talk of this hypothetical machine is pointless! It is plain irrational! But determinism doesn't break down because it doesn't claim that the future can be predicted. All it claims is that the future is(from the bigger picture) very much fixed. One must understand that each one of us, individually need not be concerned about that, because all of our knowledge is due to perception/is a resultant of empiricism. Hence, the "bigger picture" doesn't affect us.Mehfoos (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Says the person who thinks it's viable in his mind experiment to clone a person exactly and raise them at exact same conditions, all the while rolling his eyes at this thought experiment because it doesn't sound possible.--66.211.73.233 (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

True, thought experiments can make some assumptions. In this case HP, and in my case-i dunno what. Let me clarify: The main reason I don't "roll my eyes" when I read that is because it doesn't contradict itself, but this does: If you were to know the future, you changing it would make the "knowing the future"-part false. It's logically incompatible with itself as a whole. Hence it's irrational and not just "unscientific as of now". Mehfoos (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you would all enjoy David Lewis' "Paradoxes of Time Travel". As Doctor Manhattan puts it in the Watchmen movie: "Anything that CAN happen DOES happen". If we had all the information, we would know the one and only outcome of the universe. The word "possible" as we use it really just means "imaginable"- determinism would argue there is only one REAL possible future.

How does Lewis' article relate to Laplace's Demon? Our thought experiment first stated that you "see THE future". As mentioned above, we cannot allow for the idea that "you change your future" because then the first premise of our thought experiment is violated: obviously you did not see THE future! If we keep that first premise, it seems to follow that you must, by definition, witness a future that will be unavoidable.

Question: "A machine/fortune teller showed me my future of buying a white bucket. But now it's possible that I will go buy a black bucket. Paradox ensues!"

The Oracle from the Matrix Answers: "A machine/fortune teller showed you your future of buying a white bucket. Do not confuse what you can imagine doing with what is actually possible- you posses factual knowledge that you will buy the white bucket. All you can do now is understand WHY you certainly will buy the white bucket."

Tricky eh? But it seems to follow from premises "One time line" + "You saw the later end of that time line". But who knows if we will ever get to test any of this empirically: some philosophers have suggested that a machine holding all the details of this universe would have to be just as large as this universe (how else would you simulate a universe with perfect accuracy?)

Just some thoughts

Tesseract2 (talk) 03:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Looking into the future

If determism is right, you should in theory be able to produce a machine which can calculate the future. But then you could be able to see what you were doing in the future. Then what about if you decide not to do it. What happens then? Does it say anything about that in this article? --212.247.27.110 17:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Who made up such a rule? It's high time that you guys understand- the idea that the future is predictable is different form the idea that the future is fixed.Mehfoos (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

oh! here he is the one that I've been looking for. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Laplace%27s_demon#Another_argument_against_Laplace.27s_demon

I'm glad to have found you! ...may I reply to MikeUpNorth: "but, would you be capable of imagining yourself not be able to not do what the machine saw you'd be doing? it's a strange paradox: the machine tells you you'll be at this place in two hours, but in reality it is mistaken because you'll not be there (because you want to change the future). Whatever people think, I myself would not be able to imagine that going somewhere else than where the machine pointed to would be impossible. I mean, your legs would be out of your control and bring you where you're supposed to be? give me a break." opinions welcomed! Twipley (talk) 07:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion moved to: [1] Twipley (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You are basing this on the premiss that hard determinism and free will can co-exist; it is a necessary truth that they cannot. If we accept hard determinism to be true then all human actions and behaviours are governed by an unbroken chain of prior events just like everything else. This means the ability to 'decide', as you put it, does not exist in any real sense. MikeUpNorth 09:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Still an interesting theory but one point: this machine would have to have every single piece of information that exists (not an easy feat by any means (and probably impossible, when you consider energy cannot be created/des... i.e. you would have 2 universes going at once) including the fact that someone built the machine and looked at his/her future so the outcomes would be the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.147.244 (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

arguably the machine would to take into account all factors, including your reaction to the machine's prediction

This is not a issue of determinism. The problem is that such a machine could not exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undecidable_problem —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.193.160.34 (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Worth noting...

Using determinism as a basis for predicting the future, would not knowledge of the predicted future then allow one to change the predicted future (simply by consciously avoiding predictions), therefore invalidating the original predicted future and revealing determinism to be an inaccurate basis for prediction? Physical impossibilites aside, of course.

You could only change something if it weren't predetermined anyway. The ability of individuals to change the future arbitrarily assumes free will, which gets into the whole free will -v- determinism thing. WhiteC 18:23, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Another mention of the 'free will' vs determimism thing. Don;t forget QM doesn't allow free will either.

I'm not sure if this is the right proceedure for reviving older discussions - I've moved this section from the archive. Anyway, carrying on from the two previous entries:

The idea of determinism assumes that the future is determined, therefore if such a computer could be contrived that had the memory and ability to capture and store all the present information/rules (current state, basically) of the universe, it could predict the future with certainty for all eternity based on those conditions or causes (given some unimaginable processing power). Obviously such a computer or form of intelligence is not conceivable, but it still poses a theoretical problem.

What theoretical problem is posed by this? It's basically time travel; If you could accurately predict the future like that, you knowing the future, would be a part of the calculation and your decisions could not change the future from the prediction. If you traveled back in time, you might try to change what is going the happen, but you can't because from your original point of view, whatever you did/do in the past already happened Obviously these things are impossible, but they do not pose any theoretical problem.

The problem with this is that given an intelligent life form knows the future, it will then be possible for it to change things, rendering that future no longer true. I don't believe that free will could stop this - even if we have no free will our genetic make-up could still cause us to behave in this way. The key problem here for me is that such a machine would then have to try to take its own existence into account, which if it lead to a change in the future from its own determination of the future (a person acting on that knowledge, for example), the results could not be computed as a series of infinite loops would be created. Therefore such a calculation could never be made even in theory, if it allowed for anything acting upon that prediction in some way as to change it.

Answer: It may seem a bit paradoxical at first glance, but in theory this is how it would work. If an intelligent life form had precise awareness of the future and took action upon the present to alter that specific course of progression which his foreknowledge had revealed, the following would hold true. As you've indicated above, the course of progression in question could in fact become altered (from what this acquired information seemed to decree) by actions taken because of the awareness itself. However, the crux here is that if it were altered, the altered course of progression would not truly be an alteration of the steadfast determinative pattern. Instead, it would be the opposite: a forever-standing preset part of the progressive determinate universe. As would the intelligent life form's foreknowledge of what would have occurred absent 1) his foreknowledge, 2) his altering action, and 3) the subsequent effect upon the target outcome. The key is that any precise knowledge of the future and all that would stem from it would as well be predetermined. As such, any changes stemming from such conditional foreknowledge would in fact not be changes from what has always been the inflexible determinate course of progression. Ergo, in order to have a precisely accurate determinative awareness of what is to occur, any machine or person's calculations would be required to factor in *themselves*, their own foreknowledge, and, most importantly, whatever actions they would in fact take upon events leading to the end point in question.

Question, what is the smallest item that could be used to store information about the smallest possible particle? The answer is surely 'the smallest possible particle'. So the best computer we could hope to create that could store the information about the mass, momentum, location, etc of every particle in the universe would itself have the mass of the universe. In which case we now have a universe with twice as much mass, so where do we strore the info for the extra bits (another universe mass computer), and so on. The only option is to assume that the computer IS the universe. It is the only thing that can predict the future, and it is doing exactly that - in real time. --WBluejohn 20:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This is just the same logic as travelling back in time, in fact it is basically the same thing, as you are bringing the future 'back in time' to the present. I am unsure whether it is possible, only in theory, to calculate the future without acting upon that knowledge to change it. Richard001 09:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Laplace's demon only works if the information of the future does not have an effect on the present state of the universe, laplace's demon must be omniscient but powerless to all within the universe otherwise laplace's demon would become a paradox, it can only exist either 1) outside the universe or 2) within the universe as a spirit who is powerless to physical events. Omniscience IS possible, Omnipotence is NOT possible because all in the universe is governed by strict unchanging physical laws, one may argue that an entity tweeked the laws of physics so everything would happen according to a plan, but the fact that the laws of physics are so simple e.g. E=mc2 and shows that they have not been tweaked as finely as one might imagine. The future is predetermined but without intent. User; Joshua Reid —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuareid (talk • contribs) 10:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

First Paragraph.

The current 1st para is flawed in two ways;

Determinism is the philosophical proposition that every event, including human cognition, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences. No wholly random, spontaneous, mysterious, or miraculous events occur. The principal consequence of deterministic philosophy is that free will (except as defined in strict compatibilism) becomes an illusion; this philosophical belief is known as hard determinism. In contrast to determinism is libertarianism, which is the doctrine that voluntary actions are caused by a self free from prior causation; and indeterminism which is the theory that some or all events are not completely determined.

The passage in bold is somewhat WK:POV and also dealt with much better under the "nature of determinism" section.

It also fails to clarify the difference between determinism and fatalism. The question of the relationship between determinism and predictability should also be dealt with.1Z 17:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have shortened the first paragraph. It is not possible or desirable to explain all the complexities of determinism-libertarianism-compatibilism in the introduction. 1Z 21:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no difference between determinism and fatalism. The page is flawed.24.4.56.66 (talk) 08:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree to that- technically there is no difference between determinism and fatalism. Mehfoos (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Determinism vs Fatalism

It is acknowledged, in the second paragraph no less, that people generally mistake determinism for fatalism - and vice versa. I think given this popular misconception, a fuller explanation of the differences between causal determinism and fatalism is warranted.

For example, the following from the Fatalism page sums it up succinctly: "Therefore, in determinism, if the past were different, the present and future would differ also. For fatalists, such a question is negligible, since no other present/future/past could exist except [that which] exists now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.116.167.165 (talk) 09:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the point needs cleaning up. Also, determinism just involves predictability (say, in a mathematical or theoretical sense). There is no necessity for causality, ie, there is no need for a cause of everything. The fact that a pendulum is here now is not caused by it being there then, it is just following a completely determined path. When two balls collide, one is not the cause of the collision.

The problem is that you get these religious arguments that something had to cause the universe to exist. It is just deterministic, it doesn't need a cause. The past does not cause the future, but a theoretical complete knowledge of the past in determinism would allow you to predict the future. (Except that the means of predicting it would have to be part of that past!) Mike0001 (talk) 11:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the past does cause the future. If at a given moment you are falling through the air next to a tall building, the future (in which you are on the ground, dead) was caused by the past (in which you jumped off the building); if you hadn't jumped, you would have lived therefore your actions (past) caused your death (future). Determinism does not allow you to predict the future completely because the causes of any event are unimaginably complex but clearly the future is somewhat predictable because once you have jumped off the building you can predict with certainty that you are going to hit the ground and die.

First Cause

The article says:

"(2) There is no event A0 prior to which there was no other event, which means that we are presented with an infinite series of causally related events, which is itself an event, and yet there is no cause for this infinite series of events."

This is seriously misleading. An "infinite series of causally related events" is not "itself an event". This is senseless because in reality an infinite group of events would have no limits (no start, no end). One can always "add" one more event into the series. [EPLeite 01:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)]

The statement fails to take into account the nature of an infinite series as truly infinite, instead treating it as a real number. RealityRipple (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Am I the only one who doesn't see the logic behind "A further problem is that an infinite series of events before any particular event would make it impossible for the event to occur. If there are an infinite number of yesterdays, how do you get to today?" Perhaps this should be replaced with a general question about the nature of flowing time? Tesseract2 (talk) 02:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this whole section verges on the OR and should probably be removed. NBeale (talk) 10:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The phrasing fails to take into account the true nature of infinity and instead treats it as a "number" which has to have cause or begginning, when that has no reason to be the case. The "infinite number of yesterdays" don't outlaw the possibility of a today. It is a form of the problem of the halfs (when an arrow to reach to it's destination must first travel half of it's path, and then -or before- half of that half, etc.) but phrased into the form of a logical fallacy (because the arrow does reach it's destination). Therefore in my opinion it should be contested with a response as those said in here or removed altogether. Nobody is contesting it, and the statement plus the whole "first cause" section is completely uncited (besides the quantum part, but at least that one is mostly scientific unlike the other one that is theological). --190.174.64.243 (talk) 14:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A version of this paaradox was presented by Kant, so it has some provenance. But I don't find it very convincing: it seems to disappear if you label "now" as 0, 1 second ago as -1 and so on. 1Z (talk) 18:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It's ORish and dubious logic, I think it should go. 1Z (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Because of consensus and lack of opposition, I have removed the most OR statement and added citemarks to the section. --190.174.112.212 (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV on Cognitive Sciences

Not every emergentist cognitive scientist defends determinism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.146.4.89 (talk) 09:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The above statement is pov. There is no references given to back the above stated assertion. However the passages regarding emergentist perspctive in the article have been stated with references. thanks Robin klein (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup and rewrite

Huge mess that needs immediate attention. Viriditas (talk) 09:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Archived

Wow, this page was way too long so I've created some archives. If you want restart an archived discussion, please do not edit the archive but start a new section on the current talk page. Astronaut (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Free will in theology

There should perhaps be a short mention on the debate of Free will in theology, which is largely related to the question of determinism. ADM (talk) 12:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted section

I today deleted this section cause it was not cited an in my opinion is misleading:

By now we not only see that we are unable to describe a very large piece of reality exactly but we also moved from direct to statistical formulations of physical laws. Many of today's scientists still understand physical laws as rules that drive the world and believe there must be some most basic rules all the others are derived from, but this view is much weaker now than in Newton's era.

• You have to present the science that states that there are weaker believe in determinism now, rather than in Newtons era.
• You have to discuss the part of reality that we cannot describe exactly. What effect does this have on the life as such. The most of this is annulled on molecular level.
• Stephen Hawking thinks that there also may be room for determinism within Quantum_mechanics:

“These quantum theories are deterministic in the sense that they give laws for the evolution of the wave with time. Thus if one knows the wave at one time, one can calculate it at any other time. The unpredictable, random element comes in only when we try to interpret the wave in terms of the positions and velocities of particles. But maybe this is our mistake: maybe there are no positions and velocities, but only waves. It is just that we try to fit the waves to our preconceived ideas of positions and velocities. The resulting mismatch is the cause of the apparent unpredictability.”

(A Brief History Of Time by Hawking)

-- Hogne (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason modern physics is not as deterministic as in Newton's time is because of two of the three fundamental theories of physics; Quantum Mechanics and Thermodynamics. However, these theories introduce the concept of probability for completely different reasons and in completely different ways. And both can be disposed of if you want!

If you want to get rid of probabilities in QM you only need to realize that all probabilities here are introduced not by the theory itself but by it's philosophical interpretation. If you simply chose to adhere to any of the minority interpretations of QM that are deterministic you don't have to view QM as probabilistic at all. You will for sure have to accept some other very weird things in the process, but all probabilities can disappear from QM if you really want.

If you want to get rid of probabilities in Thermodynamics you only need to realize that all probabilities here are introduced as a means to reduce very complicated calculations into a form that are manageable and indeed solvable. The only prize we have to pay for this is that the results are not certain anymore, only probable in nature. Until quite recently probabilistic reasoning in thermodynamics was also only seen as an heuristic and not a fundamental and indispensable ingredient in the theory. Now Chaos Theory has taught us that the problems involving many interacting particles (three is enough) are really theoretically unsolvable without probabilistic reasoning. We can therefore now talk about Deterministic Chaos, meaning theoretical (mathematical) systems that are indeed deterministic but where we nevertheless need to invoke the probability concept to calculate the evolution of any quantity larger than a mathematical point. In this way 'determinism' and 'indeterminism' aren't seen as contradictory concepts today, as they originally were.

So for these reasons physicist of today are more sympathetic towards indeterminism than physicists two centuries ago. But it's still true that physical theories are stated in a "deterministic" way. The physicist then, when applying the theory, introduces probabilities as an aid. Either as an aid in interpreting the deterministic theory (QM), or as an aid in solving the complicated equations the theory produces (thermodynamics).

iNic (talk) 00:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Bad Philosophy

This article seriously needs rewriting. First of all, determinism and causality are two wholly separate issues and should not be treated as being the same thing. Second, we need proper definitions of what we mean by determinism before we launch into all the "Free Will" stuff. I suggest someone with the time and the motivation read John Earman's Primer on Determinism and then rewrite the begining of this article so that it isn't quite so philosophically naive and misleading.Incompetnce (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Views of Koch, Polkinghorne et al.

Hi Snalwimba. Christof Koch is not "speculation presented as fact". Nor for that matter is Polkinghorne. There seems to have been a real change in attitudes in the last few years, and I think you would struggle to find a first-rate neuroscientist who now claimed that the brain was deterministic. If so, please add the refs. NBeale (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat like what critics of Questions of Truth contend, this section is a moulinex of two fields, Quantum indeterminacy and Biological determinism creating a funny grey goo. It may sell but it ain't WP and there is no need for that section to be there at all. If by Determinism in biology we mean Biological determinism then we link to that but this article is about the philosophy not the mechanics. It is plainly stated elsewhere in say Genetic determinism that few go with strong Biological determinism - it is refer to as a strawman (we cite "The Myth of Genetic Determinism" in A Devil's Chaplain by you-know-whom). This section on Determinism and biology is superfluous and insufficiently nuanced to correctly reflect the material. Ttiotsw (talk) 07:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is that the article on biological determinism is in terrible shape and needs a lot of work to make it worthwhile, which I for one certainly don't have time to do. The view that the brain is non-deterministic which is now mainstream was not at all so a few years ago, indeed much of the discussion of freewill is about "compatbilism" which is now a dead letter. This is of course different from "it's all in the genes" or "it's all in the environment" which I agree are now straw men. The idea of the deterministic brain is still quite widespread amongst non-specialists. NBeale (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's not forget that a minority of physicists subscribe to hidden variables that (conceivably) may yet throw determinism back into the mix. I'm also a little uneasy that QoT is being cited here as an authority on this topic by (surprise, surprise) an authority on QoT. Last I read, this source's treatment of the subject was being roundly spanked. Surely we can find references to support this (ostensibly) widely-held view in the primary scientific literature rather than the deep gray? --PLUMBAGO 16:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well Grayling knows nothing about physics. Polkinghorne may be said to be parti pris although QoT is a WP:RS. But Koch is completely mainstream. Also is hidden variables bring back determinism this would apply to everything, not just the brain. The majority view as late as the 1990s was that indeterminism applied at the quantum scale but not at the neuron scale. I have another ref as well which I'll add, and I'm sure there are more. NBeale (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The biological question cannot be settled when the physical question is not, and it is not. I am toning down the hype in the addition. 1Z (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Polkinghorne is not a biologist and QoT is a semi-theological work, not primary mainstream science. I'm pulling the ref. 1Z (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The new reference (Lewis & MacGregor, 2006) is a much better source. Good find. It's not only primary literature, but it's also more conservative and even-handed in its references to chaos and quantum indeterminism. It might be better to source a statement from this than use the rather over-reaching one of Koch's that is currently in the article. Although a deterministic, neorealist interpretation of QM is not much favoured, Koch's statement precludes it out of hand. I would imagine that he's a lot more cautious in a formal scientific publication rather than a book. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 12:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Things have actually moved on quite a bit between 06 and 09. Koch and Polkinghorne are both highly notable, and since this is in the field of how quantum mechanics may scale up through chaotic systems this is well within Polkinghorne's area of expertise. Plus QoT has heavyweight scientific endorsement and this is AFAIK the first time a plausible explanation for how the quantum uncertainties can be amplified to neural scales had been published - so (although I must declare an interest as co-author) I really think it is only fair to leave it in. NBeale (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. While Koch is a neurobiologist, I'd much prefer some writing from him that was from a peer-reviewed publication instead of a book, largely for the reason I mention above (he may, of course, say the same thing there, but I expect more cautious utterances). And as much as Polkinghorne is an expert on QM, it's not obvious that this translates into expertise in the biological determinism discussed here. The Lewis & MacGregor source seems better given (a) it's a paper and not a book, and (b) the background of its authors is much closer to the topic at hand. If Polkinghorne has published on this topic in the scientific literature, then that would be a more appropriate source than QoT. --PLUMBAGO 14:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Not suggesting Polk instead of L&M 2006 but I think it should stand alongside. Again, although not formally "peer reviewed" QoT carries endorsements from Nobel Laureates Hewish and Phillips and NIH Director Francis Collins (all of whom read it beforehand!) and it is highly unlikely that L&M got a similar level of scrutiny. NBeale (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops. I forgot about all this. Sorry. Anyway, it really doesn't matter who "reviewed" QoT before its publication — the point remains that QoT is primarily a book with a strong theological core, one that ranges widely over science topics instead of being a specific treatment of biological determinism, and one whose authors are experts in subjects other than biology. If QoT is summarising a scientific viewpoint that is expressed more fully elsewhere, ideally within the scientific literature (since this is a science article), then these other sources should be used instead. QoT, at least judging from its website and blurb, is not at all an obvious source for this topic. Were the article section a meditation on determinism and theology (as a lower section is) then, yes, it would be a good source. But this section focuses on science, so a book whose main motivation lies in theology (and, more specifically, one flavour of this), is not going to be a good source. 1Z, and Snalwibma before him, were right to favour more relevant sources. And I'd still prefer something from Koch that's from a more staid publication too (but can't find anything). Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 11:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

What possible relevance lies in the fact that several distinguished people agreed to "endorse" QoT? Such argument from authority has no bearing on the (ir)relevance of a book about religion and science in a section of the article that is concerned with biological determinism. As Plumbago says, it is very far from an obvious source on the topic, and its insertion here looks like some pretty desperate self-citation! Especially now that there is a source from something much more suitable (even though not perfect), the QoT reference should be deleted. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 12:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Peer review consists essentially of getting people to look at a paper and "endorse" it or otherwise. And this is an article about philosophy - not a scientific paper about biology. As for "desperate self-citation" Koch has joined a collaboration based on the work in Appendix B of QoT which is how I have a copy of his Chapter. NBeale (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The section of the article in question is about science. 1Z (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Well somebody has an interestign interpetation of "absence of objections". 1Z (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

All these objections arrived after I had noted the "absence of objections". Ah well :-) NBeale (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It is clearly the case that several of the objections made above were made before your re-insertion. 1Z (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Quantum Mechanics

This section is almost completely unrefed and reads like OR. I have put in some fact tags, straightened out some dubious wording and removed the assertion that "That is, the quantum mechanical problem can always be solved to a given accuracy with a large enough computer of predetermined precision, while the classical problem may require arbitrarily high precision, depending on the details of the motion." which may or may not be true in a very restricted sense with the 3 body problem, but is certainly not true in general and would need some v good refs. But the whole section needs lots of work. NBeale (talk) 07:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

"This does not mean determinists are against punishment of people who commit crimes because the cause of a person's morality (depending on the branch of determinism) is not necessarily themselves."

Anyone else think this doesn't make sense? Surely if the cause of a person's morality is not necessarily themselves, then the determinist, if anything, would be against punishment? The sentence is completely contradictory.--86.176.192.145 (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Future Predictions,maybe not.

If we could predict what is going to happen in the future right now, then, isn't just another molecular or energy change that affects the future just like neurochemicals in our brain? But in fact, nothing has changed due to energy keeps moving forward and time keeps moving forward. Unless you paused time got out of the system like god and then meddled with a few things and came back and unpaused time.

If it is inside the framework of the Determinism theory, nothing can be changed. It's just an illusion of free will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.218.15.159 (talk) 11:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Separating Necessitarianism from Causal, Physical, and Mechanical Determinism

The lengthy opening paragraph under Varieties combined and confused different determinisms in other Wikipedia entries. They now have separate paragraphs.

Here is the original version in case we want to recover some material to other sections.

Causal (or nomological) determinism is the thesis that future events are necessitated by past and present events combined with the laws of nature. Such determinism is sometimes illustrated by the thought experiment of Laplace's demon. Imagine an entity that knows all facts about the past and the present, and knows all natural laws that govern the universe. Such an entity might be able to use this knowledge to foresee the future, down to the smallest detail. Simon-Pierre Laplace's theory is generally referred to as "scientific determinism" and predicated on the supposition that all events have a cause and effect and the precise combination of events at a particular time engender a particular outcome. This causal determinism has a direct relationship with predictability. Perfect predictability implies strict determinism, but lack of predictability does not necessarily imply lack of determinism. Limitations on predictability could alternatively be caused by factors such as a lack of information or excessive complexity. An example of this could be found by looking at a bomb dropping from the air. Through mathematics, we can predict the time the bomb will take to reach the ground, and we also know what will happen once the bomb explodes. Any small errors in prediction might arise from our not measuring some factors, such as puffs of wind or variations in air temperature along the bomb's path. Cmsreview (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Modern Perspective in Biology

I liked the headline in Biology for Modern Perspectives in this article the best. I wish some one would expand it. I think it is interesting because it says that you can't predict what you will do even if you were set in a controlled environment.

Determinist

We can only think of God from a human point of view. If God knows the end from the beginning he knows a person`s life. But that person still has free will and a choice whether to choose him or not. It`s an example of if you were given a chance to do something you really wanted and you took it and you went through the steps. and then you think later well, what would have happened to me if I didn`t take this chance? What would`ve been different? Would I have ended up somewhere completely different? But, at the same time you never have regrets in life, because you choose what you want and live with those choices. I believe after you have done something bad and you serve your time it should be dropped because, it was the past and you were already punished for what you did or didn`t do. Are there still consequences? Should there be consequences?