Determinism and You

Jonathan Ryan Tung

Determinism and You

Jonathan Ryan Tung Determinism and Me I am about to say something that many will find objectionable. I am a determinist. What being a determinist means to an individual in the world cannot be overstated. By now, some readers have already stopped reading this paper. There is little convincing them. However, for those readers who've made it this far, it is my hope that I can defend the theory of determinism as well discuss some of its implications. The best outcome that I could hope for is to persuade those straddling the fence into considering determinism by presenting some additional points that I think have not been given needed consideration. The implications of determinism seem to provoke the most heated opposition so it is crucial that we address them in our discussion. What is it about this theory that is so provocative? Why does it stir up so much controversy? To me the answer is pretty obvious. It is because its truth seems to lead to some very undesirable implications regarding morality, responsibility and agency, all of which we will discuss in the course of this paper. However, I find none of the arguments against determinism very persuasive and I oftentimes get left with the impression that opponents of determinism seek to convince by twisting listeners' emotions rather than by appealing to well thought reason. But before I can get to the business of the usual tradition in philosophy of fleshing out background must be taken care of first. Determinism is an old and a simple theory. The philosopher Bland Blanshard of Yale elegantly describes it as the view that all events are caused, but he astutely points out that if one does not clearly lay out terms like 'view' and 'events' then there is likely to be trouble. It is the view that if an event A occurs, then some other particular event B must have occurred by necessity. What group of things do I refer to when I use the word 'event'? What kind of events are we speaking of in the context of determinism? I refer to any persistence or change of state over a period of time. I refer to ongoing existence of ice at the river's surface or the lapping of water at the river's bank. I refer to boundless possible ways that a stone in a dark cave might be affected by exogenous forces plus the single instance of nothing happening at all. The view that holds that deteminism is false, indeterminism, can be summed up this way: it is the denial of the definition of determinism, i.e., there exists some event that is uncaused. It holds that the view presented in the previous paragraph is bogus. But even with that, the summation of indeterminism needs a little bit more polish before we can go on. Really, the indeterminist is not saying that he believes that some event is uncaused. What he is saying is that some antecedent could happen without some necessary consequent. Where the determinist states that If A happens, then B happens, the indeterminist would say If A happens, then B could happen, but it might not. It is easy to see that

Determinism and You

Jonathan Ryan Tung

both theories cannot both both be right. What the indeterminist is saying is this: Yes, the tree fell down in the forest and that's that. But it didn't have to. His friend would say, No, it did. His friend might even go so far as to say, See here. If I were to give you a set of demonstrative rules that more or less describe with convincing accuracy the behavior of bodies affected by physical forces...well then! That should strengthen the idea that the universe is causal and deterministic, shouldn't it? Put simply, the inability to understand the exact nature of a body or the physical rule that governs it during an event does not imply a non-deterministic universe. The only conclusion that we can loosely draw is that it seriously suggests limitations in our ability to know the universe in its totality. Which brings me to another point. To speak of freedom of action one tacitly assumes freedom from constraint. When the man on the street declares that he is free to do what he chooses, he feels compelled to thrust his hands into the air, challenging the universe to disprove him and shackle him down. But the universe's shackles are the invisible strings...... What he does not remember is that when he left his house that morning, he already closed the door to an innumerable number of other possible paths his life could have taken. He could have stayed home in bed and read the paper. He might have given the dog a bath or made breakfast. He may have even unwittingly saved his own life by walking out his front door as the leaky gas-line finally burst, burning down his house while he was away. But he will never know. All of these things, these events, exist to him only through reflection and thought. However, however much he is convinced in his freedom, he at least accepts he cannot simultaneously both play soccer at the stadium and watch baseball in the comfort of his bedroomthis much is certain. His freedom is certainly restricted by physical possibility. He cannot flap his arms up and down and hope to soar into the heavens. Still, despite these pesky physical constraints, he remains thoroughly convinced in his freedom to take action where he wants to and when he wants to, whatever that action may be: He just needs to give himself the opportunity, life willing. Therefore, we are chiefly concerned with the ability to be free in action with regards to choice. True, he cannot choose to lift the Eiffel tower above his head, but he is free to try. My claim? Choice is an illusion. The man in the street is convinced of his freedom of action and in choice because of the convenient lack of knowledge of the strings that govern his every move, the invisible walls that bind his action. If he were a skilled billiards player and accomplished geometer, during his more lucid moments of clarity he would see the unsettling metaphor the snooker table is to his life. Consider the parallels. With precise figures representing every ball and every force before him there is no conceivable possibility that his shot will not be true. He knows the friction coefficient for every object on the table. He has compensated for the slight tilt in the floor. He has accounted for the ambient temperature and the hairline cracks in the balls' finish. His skill has precluded any scenario where he might miss. With perfect

Determinism and You

Jonathan Ryan Tung

information he erases all but a single possible line of events. This way, he envisions the ball rolling into the pocket before it has even happened. He sees the future. For this table, this universe before him, he has the omnicience of God. We see, then, that 'possibility' is a word that describes ignorance. What are the chances that a fair coin will land head's side up? One half, you say. But this is a rude and crude abbreviation of how I would summarize things. What we have left out in this thought experiment are the innumerable variables that, having knowledge of them, would steer us toward that one single possibility that we cannot ever know. We have even attempted to haphazardly narrow our scope by using the word 'fair' to describe our coin, convinced in the veracity of the information given by this word. But that, at the very most will only give us again that two pixeled image of the future, a blurry and barely workable image to work with. If we could step outside of the universe....though it may be a stretch to say that we can see the future, it certainly supports strongly a case of a deterministic causality. The composition of the coin, the rotation speed of the coin, how far it is to fall, the temperature, etc., all of these things, given knowledge of them would limit, in our rational minds, the number of possible outcomes or their liklihoods; additional information would sharpen our acuity, refine the resolution of possibility until finally, but one single possibility would remain. It and only it could happen. Let us return to our coin example. We can reasonably say that there are equal chances of the coin landing either side face up, generally speaking. How did we come to this conclusion? Some might say this. Let us assume that the coin will never land on its side and there are no other objects about to interfere with the coin's path. Since there are two sides, we divide the liklihood evenly between the two possible outcomes. Perhaps this illustrates why we were so quick to declare our experiment a fair one: an unfair coin is weight biased in some way. Additionally, some readers would object to the convenient assumption that the coin But wait, says the indeterminist. Let's say the coin lands on tails So, in actuality, when he left his house that morning, the universe closed the door for him. Better said, those paths never existed at all. What this strongly suggests is that not only does the deterministic universe line up antecedents in an endless series off into infinity, waiting for us unwitting agents to enjoy the ride, it works in both directions in time: consequents necessarily are the products of their past antecedents and vice versa. The coin would have only landed in that particular manner given a unique set of past circumstances and only those. Of course, to speak of trees falling in the forest, flipping coins and billiard

Determinism and You

Jonathan Ryan Tung

balls is one thing: few would raise the non-issue of the choice of billiard balls to move or trees willing themselves to fall this way or that way. Speaking about human choices seems to be something entirely different, most say. And it is here where I introduce the much loved brand of determinism popularly known in philosophical circles as soft determinism. In my view, 'soft' should be a clue; a sign for one to be wary. I found myself nodding in agreement to Blanshard's paper up until the point where he argued that materialism and determinism were antithetical to one another. Suddenly, pen in hand, I began underlining all important sentences. In one majestic paragraph, Blanshard dismisses Carnap style physicalism as dogmatically anti-empirical. To repeat, that materialism and determinism cannot both be true because one precludes the other. But the most shocking point he argues for is this: that choice is somehow not of the material or mechanical realm, to be explained by non-material mechanisms. I am arguing for determinism. Specifically, I am arguing for hard determinism and it seems to be the safest route to go about this from the vantage point that assumes a materialistic causal universe. With that in mind, I find it difficult to reconcile, or even understand the type of determinism he argues for. I will attempt to reiterate his main points here.

I personally find those who profess a believe in the Hume-Mill-Schlick variety of determinism to be confused. HMS determinism, to me, smells of a failed attempt at diplomatic relations between real determinism and free will. It is no less than a last ditch effort to construct a hybrid that enjoys the perks and benefits of two conflicting views of the universe's mechanismand it's a pretty rickety one at that. For me, to believe in determinism necessitates a belief in hard determinism: it's a package deal. One cannot rationally reconcile determinism with free agency and stay consistent. Philosophy does not work like an options package. I've often felt that if a materialism held, it would deal a death blow to the indeterminist side. I even feel that the indeterminists share this sentiment. If determinism means that we are all puppets, it does not change one's life in any great way. I'd mentioned that determinism is at the center of provocative and heated debate. For the most part, as it applies to human beings, indeterminism certainly seems to be the more preferred choice if not the more undeniable one. Determinism is interesting in the sense that it seems to have gained acceptance within the scientific community at large and that it has been given grudging acknowledgment by the ethics community inasmuch as not to make the study of ethics look entirely as if it were done shot from the hip.

Determinism and You

Jonathan Ryan Tung

The loudest opposition against determinism seems to come from the side of intellectuals who hold that determinism leads to unacceptable implications with regards to moral responsibility or The word 'determinism', unfortunately, is partly responsible for some of the kneejerk reactionism against it. Few people react negatively to the notion that grains of sa Although the reach of determinism does make for some strong implications concerning free choice and human action, it attracts such strong negative press as to thoroughly convince the ignorant of that the line between determinism and evil is tissue-thin. A similar phenomenon is taking place with atheism today. Determinism, within the confines of philosophical dialogue, is a very simple theory. Determinism states that all events are caused. An event can be a change of a lack of change. Cause can be thought of some connection between two events such that if the following event has taken place, then it must be true that the preceding event must have taken place. That is to say, a particular following event would have not happened unless some preceding event took place. Close attention must be paid to the usage of the word 'particular' here. We do not simply mean the occurence of a die having landed 6-up, we mean mean that particular possible instance of that die having landed 6-up. This will become clearer with progress. Imagine you stand at the foot of a billiard table.

We are not concerned with concerned with changes in the state of events that cannot happen. One can hardly begin to have a discussion of freedom to act when the action itself is outside the realm of physical possibility. A denial of determinism would be to say that at least one event exists such that no event caused it. *determinism and sentience I submit that awareness is not sufficient for human beings to be considered exempt from the rules that govern a closed universe. The usual response to the idea that human beings are no different that the rest of the particles in the universe is the famous "the whole is more than the sum of its parts" phrase. This is not intended to sound trite, but nothing is more than the sum of its parts.

Determinism and You

Jonathan Ryan Tung

*determinism and responsibility I imagine the universe as I would a billiard table (a popular and common analogy). Outside of the universe as represented by the billiard table, stands an outside agent. If one wishes, he could even call this agent God. There is no way to tell the future? Why? No system is entirely closed except for the universe itself. A shoebox environment put together by a schoolchild is affected by the ambient temperature of classroom. A game of table tennis If it is at all possible to determine the timeline of a universe, that universe must be a closed one and a non-affecting observer must observe it from the outside. So, human beings can effectively master the timeline of a billiard table. But human beings cannot observe the Universe from the outside. And because that cannot be done, there is no way to ensure that our observations are not the product of previous events or affects, or of our own free will. *determinism and you So, one pressing question remains. How does determinism ultimately affect the reader's life? Not much. The randomness alluded to earlier is a convenient name given to that which cannot be known to a single particle within the universe let alone a sentient being. For all intents and purposes, one's quality of life is much the same after having read this paper as it was before even completing the first initial sentence. It is my hope, however, that further discussion of this philosophical topic will eventually make some readers of determinism's veracity. At the very least, I will have helped clear up some of the ambiguity surrounding this very important theory. Determinism joins the select ranks of all encompassing theories in science or philosophy whose veracity changes the lives of average people very little. Determinism's unpopularity is almost undeniably related to its relationship to human beings: it treats human beings as it would treat anything else in the universe. We are not special or unique in any ultimate sense. This idea frightens people. It angers others. I personally find it elegant. We've covered that awareness is not a criteria for exemption from universal laws. Very existence itself makes any particle or collection of particles subject to those laws. Since this paper assumes awareness must come from something, awareness and the actions that follow are caused. All of our actions are determined from the start. Strictly speaking, we are not free.

Determinism and You However, luckily for us, it's not as if mattered anyway.

Jonathan Ryan Tung

As I understand the concept of compatibilism, there is no strict conflict between free will being possible and determinism, but I prefer not to call the compatibilists' notion of free will free will. The compatibilist says that an agent is free to take the only action that was possible given the circumstances leading up to that action. But that, to me, is not free will. Since compatibilists readily admit that a particular action must follow from a particular set of circumstances, in the end it hardly makes a difference if one is speaking about the free will of a human being or the free will of a boulder since events merely act upon agents, rather than are acted out by agents. Because of this rather weakly constructed notion of free will by compatibilists, the concept is essentially without meaning. Which means that although I call myself a hard determinist, compatibilist notion of determinism is written out in such a way that I too could be deemed a compatibilist. My preference is to speak about an agent's choice with the understanding that choice is an illusion stemming from ignorance. If we accept the analogy that an agentdog, cat, fish, ant, human, horseis akin to a billiard ball, we can see how the word 'choice' is inappropriately applied: a human being has no more power to affect what is happening to her any more than a stone has in determining where it finally rests. The only universally indisputable observation that raises no controversy is that a human being has awareness while the stone does not. Awareness, however is only the lack of ignorance with regards to a limited But this knowledge does not change the fact that agents I believe in a universe of causality