Do all law-abiding processes have predetermined outcomes?

Question

Or to put it another way, is determinism unavoidable in a universe governed by natural law? Beware that this question may be deeper than it first appears, and some of the answer may surprise you. Also notice that this line of thought can have profound implications for nature of free will, and therefore affect our notions of human nature. I am not confident of my own answer at the moment, which is why I would like to hear some thoughtful responses.

Well, I asked this question two days ago, and I must say that the overwhelming lack of responses is a bit disappointing. I suppose the question is a bit technical for this forum.

Citizen ex: You seem to have missed the point. Determinism is not in conflict with change. In fact, determinism requires change. The term ‘outcome’ might be confusing because it suggests arriving at some final, stagnant state, but this is not what it means in this context. An ‘outcome’ in this case is simply a state that depends on previous states. The outcome is just a moment in time, and like all moments in time, it contributes to future states. The question is not really about determinism so much as the nature of law-abiding processes. Can a process obey natural law and still be metaphysically indeterminate?

Wires: Although you may be right in an empirical sense – we might never have the resources to experimentally determine whether or not the future is predetermined – nevertheless, this does not rule out the possibility of a strong logical, theoretical answer. Simply put: Does logic force us to conclude that a universe driven by natural law is necessarily deterministic? At first glance it might seem so. After all, if the conditions at each moment in time follow fixed rules so that conditions in subsequent moment are determined, then it is hard to see how to avoid determinism. But there is actually an easy response that I thought someone would have pointed out by now. The rules of quantum mechanics include Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. This seems to suggest that even though there are laws of nature, these laws are not totally deterministic.

But oddly enough, the actual rules of QM are deterministic. Given an initial state, we can mathematically work out each subsequent state as precisely as we like, up until a measurement is made. Then, suddenly, all hell breaks loose. Basically, the rules of QM do not apply to the measurement process itself. Measurement (or “human knowledge” it seems) introduces a purely random element into the otherwise deterministic evolution of physical states. When we are “not looking,” the universe is happy existing in a state of multiple possibilities (called a “superposition”). As soon as we open the lid to peer inside, the universe suddenly has to chose a particular reality from the range of possibilities. I don’t think most people realize how utterly bizarre this is. In effect it seems as if something in the nature of measurement is “outside” of natural law. Human nature seems law-like in many ways, and yet it seems possibly tied up with something fundamentally beyond laws.

Googolullage: Actually, chaos theory is compatible with determinism. It puts limits on what we can predict, but it assumes that there are facts, even though we can never hope to know them. Philosophers make a distinction between questions of reality, and question of our knowledge of reality. From the fact that we cannot know something, it does not logically follow that there is no fact of the matter. There could, as a matter of fact, be a diamond at the core of the moon that no one will ever know is there. Our ignorance wouldn’t make it any less true. Chaos theory allows surprising outcomes (because our knowledge is limited) but not truly novel outcomes in the sense of violating determinism. Most interpretation of quantum theory, however, DO postulate genuine metaphysical indeterminism, thus you are essentially correct in saying that the universe allows mechanical processes to be truly creative processes.

Having said all of this, I do think that chaos theory is essential to the creative aspect of the universe – not in the sense of overthrowing determinism (we need something like QM for that), but it is essential insofar as it plays a key role in the development of self-organizing systems (self-organizing systems require chaos in order to develop true mathematical complexity), and I believe that existence essentially is a self-organizing system.

Answer 1

This would happen only in a very simplified version of the Cosmos--perhaps the Newtonian dimension.

But it would bore God to death to have predetermined outcomes. Considering Chaos theory, the "Butterfly Effect", and the Complexity/Simplicity/
Simplexity/Complicity
aspects of Creation, Law-Conformable processes (Gurdjieff used that phrase) can, and will, have novel and serendipitous outcomes.

This is not a matter of sheer "Free Will". It is that the Universe is designed so that mechanical processes become creative processes. Thus God made the one and only Perpetual Motion Machine.

The Cosmos is a Singularity, which within itself gestates, so that nothing within IT can be said to "cause" or to "be affected by" anything else.

GOOD QUESTION, EroticOhio. I had to look for it at your profile.Yahoo seems to want to feature pablum-type questions.
We in the esoteric minority have a hard time finding anything worth paying attention to. We are "Lost in the Cosmos"* so to speak [* a book by Walker Percy]

[e-mail]

Answer 2

Whose law? Law that man knows? Law he perceives as Law? The Natural law we know now is not the same law known four or five centuries back and that law is not the same law of an aeon ago. Are we talking about Fatalism? Materialism (physicality) and Causality? Even these are subject to debate. This line of thought does have a profound affect on Free Will - it negates its very existence! Makes it illusory at best.

"Albert Einstein - He was unfathomably profound — the genius among geniuses who discovered, merely by thinking about it, that the universe was not as it seemed."

Now today, how many of Einstein's theories lie by the wayside?

Yes, the superposition theory is interesting. And science is proving in tiny steps that even by viewing an event the event itself is changed. Heck, they even admitted that atoms don't exist! It was something someone made up to try to ascertain what the basic building blocks of the universe were. So. . . particles or waves, both, neither? Newtonian physics produced the "Atom" that little particle that bounces around and creates matter. That kind of shoots a hole in Laplace's theory. All particles bouncing off each other in predictable ways producing a predictable result. Well, if they don't exist, now what?

This is all jumbled, I know, thoughts have always raced around in my head.

From reading I have done, humans do affect outcomes willingly or not. 'Strange' things are possible. Free Will, is it illusiory, something we think is 'real' because we take action? or are we being manipulated by the Universe in some large 'Cosmic' plan. (hark! do I hear the echo of paranoia? or just the pangs of insignificance?)

Back to Free Will. Explain, if it is possible, the monks in Tibet, who climb to the snow covered peaks and sleep on cliffs in the snow in just their Holy robes and wake up in a puddle of water. Then explain to me how mountain climbers in full winter garb and tents freeze to death just short of the summit?

This is where the Buddist's theory pops up. It's called Indra's Net. It basically states that volitional acts drive the Universe. It is not mechanical. The volition of all thinking, or sentient beings, determines the reallity in which we all live. What I feel it comes down to is, I agree you are real and you agree I am real and we both agree that the universe exists. I do believe all things are possible, it's the probabilites you have to watch out for. If enough 'beings' believe something will occur, there is a probablity it will, eventually.

I would have to say, no. We do not know all the processes, we are finding new 'laws' and discarding old 'laws' as our perceptions of the universe and its composition changes.

Thank you for this debate. It helps to wake up those grey cells once in a while and let them stretch. Oh, BTW it was commonly thought that brain cells could not regenerate. They can.

Answer 3

Man, there is a lot to think about. Not just think about, but a journey to travel. I've been on that journey and don't have the keystroke patience right now to chronicle that for you. I doubt anyone would want to read it, as each journey is personal. The bottom line question is really whether or not life has meaning and whether or not there is any purpose in my life? If you think life is predetermined and we are sort of like the bees in the hive, or the ants in the hill, then playing out your little role is no big deal. Who cares what happens along the way? But if you discover that there is real meaning in life, you will have the confidence to know that you can profoundly influence the outcomes.

Best book I've ever read on this topic is Viktor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning. He says that the basic need of man is to find meaning for life, and tells how he found meaning and freedom as a prisoner in a Nazi concentration camp.

Answer 4

It's impossible to tell because you don't know the future. If you don't know what it is you don't know if you changed it. It might look like you are fated to become a mechanic because you are really good with cars. But you decide to throw a different kind of wrench into the works and become a priest. How can you possibly know that that wasn't what was supposed to happen after all? You can't. Even if you could see the future, say, and you see something you don't like. You do something in the present to change that event. Maybe the only reason you saw the event in the first place was to make the change you made and alter what you saw. You just can't know.

Answer 5

No. All law-abiding processes once put into effect are set as is and remain as is, however, the outcome of said process can be as varied as the number of other influences it comes in contact with.

Chaos for example: It is commonly percieved that it is an entity unto itself when in fact its simply a result.

Reasoning:

The "Process": = A common plastic dishwashing scrubber and the motions used to scrub grease etc. from dishes.

The "Result": = A mixed pattern made during the process left by the scrubber on the dishes which is extremely difficult to follow or see any logic in.... ie: Chaos

Different dishes (plates bowls etc), materials on them, what they're made of, water temp, non consistant use of the scrubber etc etc etc are the examples of the influences which change the outcome.

How's that?

Answer 6

Mankind is mind. body, and spirit. Period. End of statement. You either accept this or you don't. I am sorry but your logic written statements are a bit too wordy for me. I am not just mind but also the body, and spirit. The holy spirit has been here longer than mother earth exists. Do you think you could come down from the professorship as take a quick course in QM's?
If we follow the Word of God and the abide by the Holy Spirit we shall then follow the justice of supernatural law which super cedes your natural law.

Answer 7

The trouble with liberals is just that they know so much that isn't so. The Liberal ideology is a theory , fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and which holds forth beliefs that have no basis in reality. Criminals don't pay any attention to laws... If guns were ever banned than only the bad guys would have them..Criminals prefer unarmed victims!! Having a gun will not help all the time but being defenseless will never help.. When seconds matter calling 911 and asking the bad guy to wait is not a viable option. Better to have a gun and not need it than to need it and not have it!!! **Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens.** @

Answer 8

Some laws are bad. They don't work in practice because nothing recognizes their authority. So NO. Outcomes can be changed and laws silenced in that matter. Or are we all going to fall of the edge of te earth?

Answer 9

in every rule there is an exemption

Answer 10

Of course not. "The only constant is change".