Determinism: the philosophical and scientific belief that all events—including human actions and decisions—are the inevitable result of preceding causes and natural laws.
The problem
Determinism relies on the idea of a preceding cause for every occurrence, but what caused the first occurrence?
Every cause is in itself an occurence. If we go to the beginning of time, we are able to find a first event. Since this is the first thing to exist, it seems reasonable to state that nothing came before it. If nothing came before the first event,then there could be no cause. Meaning that should there be a beginning of time, there is also at least one event that has occurred without a cause. This falls outside the rules of determinism and seems to challenge the idea that every occurence has followed determinism’s laws.
Most responses to this problem tend to rely on one key assumption;
Time has no beginning/ first event
Why time must have a beginning/first event
There are two key arguments against this;
-Time is cyclical and looped
-this existence has always existed so there is not a first event
Cyclical time
The argument tends to go as follows;
-Time is a loop
-Events are tied to time in some way
-So if time is cyclical, so are events.
In which case there will be a seemingly infinite number of “realities” (times around the same loop) where we are just following the events of the ones prior
Meaning our decisions are determined by what happens within the loop, rather than what we “decide”,there are no real “decisions” or spontaneity since we follow what is set out to happen within the loop with a 100% guarantee (determinism).Despite the seeming abundance of options in our existence , the same one is picked 100% of the time,with a 100% guarantee, so are there actually any other “options”?.
We are following a sequence of predetermined states decided entirely by the previous iterations of the time loop.
Why cyclical time may not inhibit free will
This existence that you and I occupy may be the first iteration of the “ time loop”.
In which case time within this existence can be viewed linearly as nothing is looping back on itself yet. This linear nature of time means that there is a beginning to this first iteration, and we run into the same problem of regression, which inhibits determinism as it is defined-due to the first occurrence problem.
In addition, it may not even be necessary for this to be the first iteration. If we think of time being looped, it is still passing at a constant rate,and progressing, returning to the start of the loop does not set the time of total existence back to zero,it sets the time of the loop and the events back to zero.
It may help to imagine this on a graph,with time along the x axis and events along the y axis. Time passes at a constant rate,linearly-regardless of if the events loop back on themselves. As total time passes along the x axis, it is actually the events along the y-axis that repeat themselves every set distance along the x-axis (iteration of the “time/event loop).
With time progression working this way we no longer need to be in the first iteration, we just need to track back to it to find the regression problem. We would simply do so by going back to 0 on our x axis, at which point we still run into the first cause problem-despite the fact that time is “looped”.
In addition, the cyclical time argument relies on the idea of events being related to time and looping with them,which is seemingly weak
This existence has always existed
Relative to our own existence, this is obviously true. However using the timeframe of our own existence as the only timeframe within the grand -scheme of things is seemingly limited.
Think of a computer program made within our world, once launched,the only time that has ever existed for that program is what has passed during its existence. Relative to itself, it has always existed.
However in our world, it has not, there was a time before it existed.
Now think of our world in a similar way to the computer world, if our reality originates from a different existence-perhaps a more “true” or “real” one, then time has likely existed before us.
If this parent reality was to “create” ours, then that creation would be the original cause, with our realities “laws” assigned during the process.
Effectively removing the need for the original cause to stem from our reality,whilst still existing. Meaning the time regression problem would no longer exist.
For us to exist, that was always going to happen, so the predetermination of the first cause (creation) is valid, it just stems from an existence beyond our own.
This means that determinism would be possible, with the caveat of accepting that this reality we occupy stems from another which is responsible for creating ours, and assigning its laws.
The issue with this is that it seems to only serve to move the “first cause” problem back into the parent existence. However this “problem” relies on the parent existence following the same laws as our own, and is also irrelevant when discussing the laws of our own universe as a closed system.
Conclusion
Determinism survives the first-cause problem,but only if we accept that it works only in a closed system-not across all realities.
Within our own existence,determinism is possible if we accept that a parent reality is responsible for the creation of ours and its laws.
For our reality, the regression stops there. We do not need to explain the parent realities origin in order to explain our own.
That being said, determinism still falls to the regression problem in the grand-scheme of things if parent realities assume the same laws as our own.
Determinism may work for us, but maybe not for everything.