Between determinism, and fatalism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCYHpmJoaW8&feature=sub

Thanks Bushi. I had always considered the two essentially synonymous. I can see that I'll have to be more carful when discussing either one from here on out.

Now it seems to me, when speaking from a strict materialist viewpoint, that the functional difference between Fatalism and Determinism can only arise from the randomity present at the quantum level. As I understand it, anything above that level is Fatalistic in nature - i.e. the interactions of matter and energy always follow very strict laws, without exception.

I would like to know (regarding the video) what Christianity has to do with determinism vs fatalism.

I do not agree that it MUST arise at the quantum level. Randomness, or random like behavior can happen in any macro system of sufficient complexity.

Also, I do not think randomness is really the right tool to achieve freedom of action either . . . Chaos theory holds many concepts that are non random, pattern inducing, and yet amazing in complexity, and challenging to model.

Again, I cannot really think of anything that must happen, given the number of variables in any natural system. I am anti-fatalist I guess you could say.

I think also many people confuse the distinction between what is, and what we can know about what is.

When I try to model the real world, I cannot possibly account for every interaction from the very beginning of time, so my model CANNOT be perfect no matter how hard we try, but if we recorded with some fantastic higher dimensional video camera, and revered the tape, we would see that every interaction had a preceding set of interactions that made it possible, that IS what happened (ontology of the universe)

Now we cannot do that, so we use representations of reality (math) to tell us (knowledge: epistemology) to some degree of accuracy what has happened, or will happen in the future, but that is not deterministic, determinism says nothing about predictions, just that each event was set up by prior events, not that they where fated to do so, or that nothing could change, or that we humans would have the ability to map out these interactions and predict the future. Determinism deals in none of that, yet its often confused with such, in fact many times so often that as words do, it has changed in the common associations.


Many Christian apologists confuse determinism and fatalism, and will somehow try to say that god gives free will, and that is the only way this problem is solves, thus evidence for there belief, its a rather weak argument in my opinion, its really not what I wanted to point out in this video, but was the reason this youtube user made the vid soooo. . .

I have heard Christians say that God knows what we will do before we do it, which seems to go against the idea of "free will" as our choices are allegedly known (by the all knowing god) before they are actually made. This would actually suggest that fatalism is a fact, and negate any claim to the idea of "free will," God given or otherwise -- according to Christianity.

I have also discussed "free will" with Christians who claim that God "gives us free will" but the choices we are actually given amount only to two. These choices are to follow and obey their god -- or not. This is not much of a choice when you consider what they claim are the consequences for not making the 'right' choice. (Death and/or Hell.)

I sense from a lot of organized religions that they are actually apposed to "free will" and hate that people have a will of their own because they claim that your own will is "evil" and that you should follow "God's will" only.

The problem with that is that they (the churches) claim to be the authority of what "God's will" actually is and then they try to dictate that will to the masses.

I have always said that the term "free will" is an improper one because the will is simply the will, and it always has the power to be used.. or not. In other words it is always "free."

The fact that we have a will of our own is such a powerful and obvious one, the organized religions were forced to grab that concept and and claim that it was "given to us by their God."

But why would their God, (or any God) give its creature creations a will of their own in the first place and then turn around and extort them into giving it up to follow the "His will?"

Even if a god did give his creations a will of their own, it would be because he wanted them to use it. He would not then turn around and extort them into following his will. He would allow them to use their own will without the extortion. (Threat of Hell and death etc.)

Christians argument for this is that God only wants people who willingly follow and worship him. Okay, I can understand that, but then he also insists that our wills are "evil" and that his followers must now follow "his will" only. (What ever that is.)

So the price for following god (organized religion) -- is your own will. You surrender your power to choose and make decisions when you walk into the house of the almighty Lord. You give up your freedom and your "free will" and become a servant and obedient slave to the almighty god.

But this kind of bondage is contrary to freedom and very depressing to most souls who desire freedom. Therefore I have concluded that Christianity actually worships bondage and servitude which is the hallmark of "the Devil" in the tarot. Therefore the Christian god is actually the energy of the Devil who places people in bondage and servitude.

What we want is our will and our freedom and that is ours naturally.

Disregarding Christianity and getting back to the subject of determinism vs. fatalism.

I sense that "determinism" is simply the law of cause and effect, and the future is determined by the present decisions and agreements of the moment.

Fatalism may have a role in the scheme of the over-all event momentum on a larger scale according to a group consciousness and group agreement.

Very astute.

Then I guess I don’t really understand the concept of “randomity”.

For example, would the movement of pool balls after the breaking of the rack be considered “random”? If so, then it seems to me that random is simply a term applied to “not fully understood complexity”. That is, when a system gets too complex to fully understand, it is labeled “random”.

If that example is not considered to be “random”, then what would be?

I can see “randomity” being synonymous with “unexpected” (more in the sense of “without expectation” than in the sense of “contrary to what is expected).

But that, to me, is not really any different from the unexpected movement of the pool balls in the sense that it is not fully understood.

I guess I having a hard time reconciling the “fixed, universal laws of physics” with the idea that randomness is possible within the physical universe (exclusive of randomity at the quantum level).

EDIT:

Let me put it this way...

For randomity to occur in the macro universe, it seems that it would require that two identical causes to result in different effects - which seems to conflict with the whole concpet of "laws of physics". (Again, exclusive of quantum phenomena.)

Randomness is a mathematical principle which is naturally epistemic.

We can never be sure if randomness exists in nature.

There is nothing random in breaking a rack of pool balls. The etire event is a series of actions based on determinism and the current laws of motion and gravity.

Example: A piece of lint on the cloth may change the way the que ball strikes the rack, but the lint did not appear randomly out of nowhere.

What I understand about random events is that they defy mathematical prediction. Abra likes to use the rolling die as an example of a random event. I wonder if that is the reason for the somewhat unusual tendency of nature to employ the use of cube-shaped objects?

The cube may be a reflection of a chaotic system more than it is a reflection of randomness and only appear to be random because we don't have the key to its predictability? I don't know!!

Ok, thanks.

Nothing to contribute, just adding this to my 'watch list'.

Edit: Great topic, Bushi!

You could say that a given event is random if its probability distribution is something like this.



There are other types of events that would meet the mathematical definition of random.

There are discrete and continuous random variables. It can get quite complex, but its really just a descriptor of probabilities within set theory, or calc.

Honestly, it gets VERY mathy, in fact way above my pay scale. I think for our purposes this article helps clear up the confusion, the term is used in MANY many different ways depending on the occasion, and context.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness

I really don't think random occurs in nature myself. I think whats important, and took me a long time to really accept is that math is epistemic, its designed to provide us with knowledge, all mathematical terms are likewise epistemic, and many times mathematician make the mistake of requiring that what is actually happening IS epistemic. Its not, its ontic, we use these terms, these formulas that in some cases represent nature to a very fine degree, and can show us what is likely to happen.

But I can guarantee that in the macro world, each effect has a preceding cause, random or not. Going from a random outcome, or a collapsing wave function, or a superposition of neuronal states to decision making is like taking a leap from LA to NY in a single bound, its not telling us how we got there.

QM does not solve free will, I think its a rabbit hole. The brain and chaos IMHO are what will lead the way. We may need to use QM to explain certain functions of the brain, but that is like explaining a single part of a 747, its not going to be the key.

Well Billy that is one way to shut everyone up. Just put up some sort of formula that nobody understands.

For all intents and purposes, it could be argued that within the realm of human comprehension that there was only 1 random act in the history of the universe (the big bang), and that everything else in history is a direct result of that action making it fatalistic.

I could include the calculations if it would help. :)

LoL, yes please do. I would like to see the calculations from first principles.

The relativistic string theory of motion:



Then in the realm of quantum physics, observing something actually influences the physical processes taking place. Light waves act like particles and particles act like waves (wave particle duality).
Matter can go from one spot to another without moving through the intervening space (quantum tunnelling). Information moves instantly across vast distances. In fact, in quantum mechanics we discover that the entire universe is actually a series of probabilities each influenced by the action of another event.

Which brings us back to my initial statement that after the initial random act, everything else is purely a related reaction and even though there are a host of possibilities and probabilities - they are the sum result of every action prior to that event making the entirely of the universe fatalistic.

This is purely my theory and my only evidence is the collation of other theories of physics as they pertain to the universe but as a scientist, it is a valid theory until it can be disproved.

Wrong conclusion. And your Logic is flawed. The entire universe is NOT fatalistic because it contains millions of 'observers' which by your own admission 'effect' the outcome of what is observed.

Therefore the 'decision of the observer is the random event and does effect outcome. Does that sound fatalistic to you?

The universe of probabilities do not become experienced "events" UNLESS they are observed and followed.

It is the law of attraction that if you place your attention on something you will eventually be drawn to it or it to you. Therefore when you observe a particular probability it increases the probability's chances to come to pass or manifest.

The universe is not fatalistic. Randomness is the act of decision of the observers.

Your logic:

You said: ..in the realm of quantum physics, observing something actually influences the physical processes taking place.

Why would you think that things happen differently in the macro universe? Because you can't see the quantum influences?

You also said: "in quantum mechanics we discover that the entire universe is actually a series of probabilities each influenced by the action of another event."

..but a probability is just a probability. It is not an actual event until it is observed and "followed." (By followed, I mean experienced as an event and recorded in memory.) The only way an observer can experience a probability is to place attention on it and experience it as an event.

Without observers, probabilities remain probabilities. Without observers nothing is experienced and recorded in memory, hence, in mind, NOTHING HAPPENED.

Bushido,

I was surprised by your post with equations describing 2 events with equal probability as an example of randomness...my first thought was that any situation in which any kind of probability distribution has meaning is one in which 'randomness' is at work. I check the linked article, "a random process is a repeating process whose outcomes follow no describable deterministic pattern, but follow a probability distribution, such that the relative probability of the occurrence of each outcome can be approximated or calculated."

I mean, your example relies on the assumption that the idea of a probability distribution is meaningful; and if thats true, than any non-zero and non-unary probability value gives you randomness, so I'm not sure what is gained by posting a two-state-with-equal-probability example. Is there a more restricted definition of randomness that requires discret states or equal values?

I know there are many scientists-in-general, engineers, and even some physicist who seem to forget the basic truth of what you say here:



In reality, the 'best' way to treat many processes (for example, radioactive decay) is as if it were truly random (per above quote) in nature. But you are still correct, we can never really know if there is a non-random process going on beyond our ability to sense/infer.