The problem determinism can not escape

Metaphysics & Epistemology
1

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.

2

This is the best paradox! How could a causal world have no cause for its very first cause? Mathematicians say that the absence of anything at all is mathematically unstable. In this case, the original cause was the instability (the impossibility) of the complete absence of any causes.

3

The dominant model in cosmology is based on Einstiens theory and is that if you trace the expanding universe backwards, space becomes smaller and denser until you reach a singularity. If space itself comes into existence at the Big Bang, then time, which is woven together with space as spacetime, also begins there.

There are lots of other theories in cosmology and competing explanations but the standard model does explain the origin of time well and fits with a large number of experimental observations

4

The only problem that I see here is that you are operating under the mistaken assumption that there are some “rules of determinism” that are set in stone – or rather, I suspect, some dictionary whose definition you treat as supremely authoritative (see also your previous thread about “the” definition of consciousness).

5

No, in each loop we act according to our internal motivations and desires.

There is no difference between loop 1 and loop 2

I.am not arguing we do live in a cyclical universe. I dont know - just pointing out what compatibilsm tells us. We experience freedom in a determinist universe

6

A coherent possibility: an initial state of affairs. Time/change emerges from that. The initial state is not an event, because an event entails a time prior to it.

Determinism also surivives this alleged “first-cause” problem if there was an initial state from which the universe (or multiverse) emerges. Not only is this more parsimonious than a hierarchy of realities, but I don’t see out this hierarchy solves anything: the reasoning applies to it as well: something had to cause the overall framework (if one accepts the premise that everything as a cause, and nothing can exist uncaused).

7

Why do you believe there was a first cause with absolutely nothing at all before that?
A so-called ‘problem’ only exists if you have and hold this belief.

you can obviously only go to some so-called ‘beginning of time’ in imagination only. And, you can only go to a place called the ‘beginning of time’ if you presume or believe such a place could exist.

Why do you keep ‘trying to’ insist that there was some so-called ‘first thing to exist’ or ‘first event’?

Are you able to explain how a so-called ‘first event’ could possibly exist logically, and then could possibly exist physically?

But there cannot be a ‘beginning of time’, other than, of course, when human beings made up and constructed that word.
Also, what you have said previously in this post does NOT ‘mean’ that there could even logically be a ‘beginning of time’, let alone that ‘should there be a beginning of time’. There is absolutely nothing that indicates ‘there should be a beginning of time’.

Has absolutely anyone, since human beings came into Existence, written down anywhere and explained HOW there could be, empirically and theoretically, ‘a beginning of time’ and at least one event that occured without a cause?

Only if one presumes or believes that a first cause, in ‘the way’ most of you people imagine it, could laughably be possible.

There is NO ‘problem’, and this is because the Universe exists always, NOW.
The only REAL ‘first cause’ happens and occurs NOW, always.
And this Fact means that there is NO ‘problem’ at all with ‘determinism’ itself.

8

Causal chains rely on the existence of time.

If time emerges from something more fundamental, then it makes little sense to expect a first cause for that something (e.g. a network of qubits, see loop quantum gravity theory).

9

If eternalism is true then time doesn’t “progress” in the way it does if presentism or the growing block theories are true. The universe is just a four dimensional “block” that exists as a static entity.

Determinism should then be understood not as the claim that “everything has a deterministic cause” but that “the changed conditions between two time periods are explained by nothing but physical laws”.

1 Like
10

What causes the numbers on the 10 randomly selected cards from the randomly shuffled 78 cards numbered from 0 to 78?

If all events and actions are inevitable results of preceding causes and natural laws, can you predict the randomly selected 10 cards from the randomly shuffled 78 cards under the preceding causes and natural laws?

11

Wouldn’t this mean that all events — past, present and future — are accurately predictable? Thus the Universe is, in that sense, static? There can be no surprises, no unexpected events of any sort, anywhere, anywhen.

Maybe so. But it doesn’t sit nicely with my own world-view. So maybe the problem is mine? :wink:

12

Well, that sounds like progress. To learn something new you must first be aware of your limitations :slight_smile:

13

I do not know whether time exists as a flow or just describes a relationship between things.

I see a block universe as one in which there are timeless structures. Structures have a logic that does not depend on time - being composed of parts that exist in relationships with each other governed by natural laws.

The physicist most sceptical abouf time is Carlo Rovelli. He articulates his view and the idea of quantum loop gravity in a beautiful book “The order of Time”. There is nothing in Rovelli descriptions of the universe that aims to prove or disprove the existence of a creator god.

14

Indeed so. :+1: And I have at least as many “limitations” as any other contributor here. :wink:

That’s one reason why I work so hard to say what I mean, not to imbue my outpourings with false authorities, or the like. And I mean only what I say explicitly; without employing implication(s), or writing ‘between the lines’. Etc.

Take care. :grinning_face:

1 Like
15

Perhaps something determined it? What is the difference between something being “determined” and something being “caused”?

16

Wouldn’t it be pointless keep saying something is caused, but there is no information what the cause might be?

We don’t have enough reliable data from real observation or credible recorded archive to be able to infer reasonable causes for the first occurrence, hence any inference on the causes would be just speculative in nature.

17

Good OP, and good definition of determinism. As worded, it seems kind of objective, not subjective. So for instance, my decision to choose vanilla is inevitable, as is my decision to choose chocolate. Subjectively I choose only one of those, but in an interpretation like MWI, both inevitably occur. Hence ‘objective’, not so much subjective.
This is (part of) why MWI is considered a hard deterministic interpretation. I think soft determinism is more like an omniscient entity knows ‘the future’ (riding on a presumption of those words being meaningful), and thus my actions are inevitable by definition.

None of this is criticism. Just trying to nail down definitions and point out what might be relevant.

OK. That’s a pretty old problem of first cause, and determinism doesn’t seem to be necessary. It’s also a problem with non-deterministic interpretations. Un-caused stuff appears to happen all the time, but yea, time still is there, and an initial state is not something that happens in time since it arguably defines time.

Every cause is in itself an occurence.

‘Occurrence’ implies ‘event’, both of which imply an action that takes place at a place and time. The cause of the weather for instance is not an occurrence, it is simply a prior state, which includes other planets and everything.

If we go to the beginning of time, we are able to find a first event.

Sketchy. It didn’t take place in one place, but yea, time can be bounded on both sides. There are states where time ends, causing no subsequent states. Neither bound is a violation of physics.

Since this is the first thing to exist

Here I note that your usage of ‘to exist’ seems to imply ‘objects within our universe’, which is common, and pretty mind dependent. I use a similar definition, but I call it out.
Note that it doesn’t imply that our universe exists since our universe isn’t an object with a location in space and time. That would be a very different category.

it seems reasonable to state that nothing came before it.

It is meaningless to reference a time outside its bounds. It being meaningless makes it unreasonable to make such statements. The statement implies that the universe is an object contained by time, that it is something that ‘happened’. One has to choose which model is being used. Time as part of this universe, or this universe being an object within time.

I agree that the initial state of our universe does not fit the usual model of a caused state. It may be a collapsed state (per Hawking), but not a collapse in the kind of time that we reference since part of that collapse is the defining of the kind of time this universe uses.

[quote]Most responses to this problem tend to rely on one key assumption;

Time has no beginning/ first event
[/quote]
Yea, well relativity says otherwise, and it’s a deterministic theory. It has no problem with bounds.

The former has some weird but viable models like Penrose’s which arguably still require a beginning to time, even if not an initial state. It’s cyclic, but not a loop. I know of no viable loop proposals.

As for no first event, there’s Schmelzer’s interpretation which denies black holes, big bang, and all other bounds to time. Presentism kind of requires a theory like this.

Meaning our decisions are determined by what happens within the loop, rather than what we “decide”

Nonsense. You make it sound like the two are mutually exclusive instead of one being the means by which the other is done.

This is a common misconception that relies on premises of the libertarians, without which it simply does not follow.

A model of a looping universe contained by time (as opposed to containing time) need not evolve the same way each time around the loop. Penrose’s model certainly doesn’t, but again, it’s cyclic, but not a loop.

You go on at length about this looping idea, but again, I know of no valid looping model that matches empirical findings.

There you go. Maybe time on the outside, but it’s not the same kind of time. A computer simulation is fully deterministic, and yet it having an initial and final state does not violate that. It only means that the initial state evolves the same way each time the simulation is run.
A computer simulation is typically pretty classical. It has a state at any given (internal) time. It does not branch.
It has been proven that our universe is not classical, notably that it is not ‘locally real’, meaning that it either lacks a defined state at a given time, or subsequent states are not only a function of past states, but of future ones.
It doesn’t lend itself well to a classical computer simulation.

If this parent reality was to “create” ours

We differ here. A parent reality cannot create a reality, it can only simulate one. That helps them know about our reality, but it’s no more an act of creation than adding 2+2 being a creation of a 4 that didn’t exist until then. The trivial example is one of a trivial simulation of adding 2 and 2.

so the predetermination of the first cause (creation) is valid, it just stems from an existence beyond our own.

You’re positing a creator, a thing even more unlikely than that which it creates. It solves no problem and runs into infinite regress.

No. Determinism (any form) does not imply subjective predictability.
The fact that the time of decay of an nucleus is unpredictable is not a falsification of determinism.

18

That theory was initially published by George LeMaître, Belgian physicist (and priest). When he presented it, Einstein was initially dismissive of the idea (‘Your calculations are correct, but your physics is abominable’.) But over time he came to accept the evidence of an expanding universe.

19

Yes that’s a great story. Modern cosmology is in many ways a collective endeavor.

20

Time in our existence would yes but you cant disprove that there is a “greater time”-essentially time that is beyond our existence and part of the “parent reality” described.

I agree that the singularity is the origin of time in our reality, but i am not certain that it is the origin of total time.

Do i actually believe this is the case? Probably not, but it works for determinism.