sign in sign up
<<
Home , Illusionism (philosophy), Linguistic determinism, Necessitarianism

144 : The Scandal in

Determinism Libertarianism Agent-Causal

Chapter 9 -Causal Soft Non-Causal Soft Compatibilism SFA

Hard Incompatibilism Soft DeterminismsSemicompatibilism Broad Incompatibilism Soft Libertarianism

Narrow Incompatibilism Modest Libertarianism Daring Soft Libertarianism Impossibilism Cogito Soft Incompatibilism Leeway Incompatibilism Valerian Model (Alternative Sequences) Source Incompatibilism (Actual Sequence)

Two-Stage ModelThis chapter with on the Limitedweb Determinism and Limited Indeterminism informationphilosopher.com/solutions/determinisms 145 Indeterminism Determinisms Determinism Libertarianismis the that everything that happens, includ- Determinism ing all human actions, is completely determined by prior events. There is only one possible future, and it is completely predict- able in , most famously by Laplace’s SupremeAgent-Causal Intelligent Demon, assuming perfect knowledge of the positions, velocities, Compatibilism and forces for all the atoms in the void. More strictly,Event-Causal I strongly suggest that determinism should be Soft Determinism distinguished from pre-determinism, the idea that the entire past Hard Determinism (as well as the future) was determined at the origin of theNon-Causal universe.

Determinism is sometimes confused with causality, the idea 9 Chapter Soft Compatibilism that all events have causes. DespiteSFA ’s critical attack on the necessity of causes, and despite compatibilists’ great Incompatibilismrespect for Hume as the modern founder of compatibilism, many Hard Incompatibilism philosophers embrace causality and Softdeterminism Causality very strongly. Some even connect it to the very possibility of and reason. Semicompatibilism And Hume himself believed strongly, if inconsistently, in neces- Broad Incompatibilismsity. “‘tis impossible to admit any mediumSoft betwixt Libertarianism chance and Illusionism necessity,” he said. said “The law of causation, according to which later events can theoretically be predicted by means of earlier Narrow Incompatibilism Modestevents, Libertarianism has often been held to be a priori, a necessityDaring of , Soft aLibertarianism 1 Impossibilism category without which science would not be possible.” But some events may themselvesCogito not be completely determined Soft Incompatibilism by prior events. This does not mean they are without causes, jut Leeway Incompatibilismthat their causes are probabilistic. Such an event is then indeter- minate. It might or might not have happened. It is sometimes Valerian Model (Alternative Sequences)called a “causa sui” or self-caused event. But a probabilistically caused event may in turn be the adequately deterministic cause Source Incompatibilism for following events. These later events would therefore not be (Actual Sequence) predictable from conditions before the uncaused event. We call this “soft” causality. Events are still caused, but they are not always predictable or completely pre-determined.

1 Russell (1960) p. 179 Two-Stage Model with Limited Determinism and Limited Indeterminism

- - , who quan alternative alternative ’s quantum mechanics are are mechanics quantum Erwin Schrödinger Erwin indeterminism. There is only only is There indeterminism. , and , and ’ “swerve” are such uncaused causes. uncaused such are ’ “swerve” Epicurus Albert Einstein Albert , is the idea that only whatever actually happens actually happens whatever only the idea is that indeterminism. indeterminism. Free Will: The Scandalin Philosophy The Will: Free Actualism But quantum indeterminacy is real and ontological. There is There ontological. indeterminacy and real is quantum But Even some philosophers who accept the idea of human free human theidea of who accept philosophers some Even Philosophers and religious thinkers may feel ill-equipped ill-equipped feel may thinkers religious and Philosophers By contrast, there are many determinisms, depending on what what on depending determinisms, many are there contrast, By Uncaused events are said to break the “causal chain” of events events of chain” the “causal break to said are events Uncaused of form one basic only is There The Determinisms The of denies the It happened. ever have could idea for millennia, since it denies God’s foreknowledge. Chance, Chance, foreknowledge. denies God’s millennia, it since idea for ignorance. human of the result epistemic, only is they say, world. in the physical chance objective dom are uncomfortable with the randomness implicit in implicit the randomness with uncomfortable are dom is chance True the indeterminacy principle. and mechanics tum like some, included This scientists. many even for problematic, PlanckMax philosophers traditional for And world. the quantum discovered atheistic be to an been has thought chance tradition, religious a in determinism. Because interpretations of of Becausedeterminism. interpretations the dodge philosophers recent most physicists, for difficulteven determinism the of on agnostic themselves declare and issue or action. This chapter identifies more than a dozen distinguishable distinguishable dozen a than more identifies chapter action. This deal. a great they though overlap determinisms, on basedfreedom discuss physical theto conflict a between particular their own (logical physical) and or physics quantum mechanics is the fundamental source for irreducible objective objective irreducible for source the fundamental is mechanics biological, in the physical, unpredictability indeterminacy and worlds. human and or event an of be to determinative considered are pre-conditions back to a primordial cause or “unmoved mover.” mover.” “unmoved or cause a primordial to back and “accidents” that randomness based a genuine freedom, on irreducible one Quantum chain. the in causal breaks with world a for provides 146 Chapter 9 future event. Statements about afuture event that are today necessitate true the of istry possibilities forsoph began actions.withthe logical This idea model ofmodel that mind the as acomputer. sees The mind may causal relationship with event. the events the all that are past inthe light-cone of an event can have a Note that there are always multiple causes for any event. Basically, Galen Strawson Prime Mover. Nothing is uncaused or self-caused ( ent cause, inan infinitecausal chain goingback to adultthe brain is acquired through life . tion required to determine our futures. Most of the in note that our genes contain of fraction informa the aminiscule that our genes pre-dispose us kinds to of certain behavior. But debate. Again, sides are both determinisms. There is little doubt genetic makeup. Thisthe is side the of Nature/Nurture grammed, by accident or deliberately, by education, for example. behaviorists mind the as acomputer see who that pro has been controlwith perfect of behavior. Many cognitive scientists are great success “programming” behaviors the of animals, but never an extreme by B. F. Skinner early inthe century, 20th had who - note that are both determinisms. was developed Thisview to ing. Thisthe is Nurture side the famousof Nature/Nurture debate reactions developed inus by environmental or operant condition dom.”. appeared as what decisions, preventing any alternative possibilities that might have if a hypothetical intervening controller can change agent’s the claim which cases, thatfurt an agent’s actions even free can be Cognitive Science Determinism Science Cognitive DeterminismCausal Determinism Biological DeterminismBehavioral Sophisticated defenses Frank of include idea this so-called the Diodorus Cronus supports with Argument. his Basic view this assumes event that has an every anteced ’ findscauses for our actions in our assumes that our actions are reflex Master Argument results from acomputational calls “flickers calls free of Determinisms for determinism. Aristotle causa sui causa ). ’s ’s ------147

Chapter 9 - - - - - ’s Philosoph Aristotle ’ Master Argument are the clas are Argument ’ Master . claims that our determines determines language our that claims is the dialectical of Hegel or or the dialectical is Hegel idealism of reasons that a about a future a future about a statement that reasons ’s well-known article, , in the Fatalism, article, well-known ’s Diodorus Cronus Diodorus pre-determined, say cognitive scientists, and philoso and scientists, cognitive say pre-determined, is the simple idea that everything is fated to happen, happen, everything to ideathat fated is the simple is , was about logical arguments denying future contin future denying logical arguments about , was Daniel Dennett Daniel Free Will: The Scandalin Philosophy The Will: Free Logical Determinism Historical Fatalism community constrain the conceptual categories of a linguistic a linguistic of categories the conceptual constrain community thought. determine thus and community reasoning, but it cannot provide us with knowledge about the about knowledge with us provide cannot it but reasoning, the world. constrain it can nor world physical The know. thus and say think can and the we things limits) least (at in a language speech that claims hypothesis Sapir-Whorf Sea Battle and Sea and Battle about the statement If determinism. this of kind of sicalexamples happen. possibly describes it not can false, is the event the future like , of truth outside is systems, formal logic, in other as In our constrain logic can God. Fortunately, of the foreknowledge revise the past to suit their purposes, but claimed that the future is is the future that claimed their purposes, suit but revise to the past determined. economically Principle true.is This the not is true it either is or happening event the statement If Middle. the Excluded of the Law and Bivalence of the event. true,is logical then necessitates certainty gency. The Idle Argument claimed that since things are fated, it is it fated, are since things claimed that IdleArgument The gency. effect. no all, they have since can at actions take any to “idle” govern to assumed are that the dialectical Marx of they could felt often have Marxists history. future of the course otherwise deterministic laws. It can thus include the miracles of of the miracles include thus can otherwise It laws. deterministic be philos a theological Some thus fatalism. and gods, omnipotent determinisms. other cover loosely use to the term fatalism ophers Taylor Richard Reviewical be evolving its own computer programs, but the overall process is is process the overall but programs, computer own its be evolving completely like phers fate that Notice their future. over control no have humans so that or causal any follow neednot and power be arbitrary an might 148 Chapter 9 man same the way. Note that although planets, stars, and argument, the goes galaxies, surely govern they Newton’s laws of classical mechanics govern workingsthe of the tent, events the may have pre-destined been more recently. Some predestination is similar, but is assumed omnipo to ifGod be was pre-determined at of beginning the universe. the Theological is not really made by agent. the tions are presented to mind, the by determined prior actions, the our would acts irrational. be Otherwise, Since possiblethe ac all by determined be possible best the reason or our greatest desire. are visible to such asuper . world, demon the can know entire the past and future. All positions,the velocities, and forces inthe particle on acting every made.paradigmatic The that is case Laplace’s of Demon. Knowing predictable,day perfectly be once enough measurements are atom human inthe mind and assumes that some mind the will ism by laws, of nature, of human nature, etc. conscious will. are made by brain’s the neurons significantlybefore any action of experiments haveLibet interpreted been to show that decisions originatorsthe of our actions. “My neurons made me doit.” The opposed to libertarians. popular name for determinists 18 inthe pus ism that is simply claims everything necessary. This was that human the mind was and free undetermined ( human and animals all as deterministic bodies machines, he said Pre-determinism DeterminismPsychological Physical Determinism DeterminismNomological NeuroscientificDeterminism DeterminismMechanical ’ view at’ view of beginning the determinism. Thisthe was most is avariation and of logical causal determin claims that that everhappens everything extends laws the of physics to every explains man as amachine. If is abroad termto cover determin is the idea that is idea the our actions must assumes that neurons the are René DescartesRené th century, were they when Determinisms indeterminata described described Leucip ). ------149

Chapter 9 ------Albert Albert 2 is a philoso is and . Compatibilists are are . Compatibilists is the consequence of of the consequence is J. C. Smart J. J. is a view is based special on rela Hermann Minkowski Hermann pre-determined , there are simply no possibilities for for possibilities no simply are , there is the idea that Free Will is compat is Will Free the idea is that or indeterminacy ). Note the multiple logical inconsistencies in the idea logical inconsistencies the multiple ). Note Compatibilism is taken to imply that time is simply a fourth dimension dimension a fourth simply time is that imply taken to is See 5. page Free Will: The Scandalin Philosophy The Will: Free 2 Chance is anathema to most philosophers and many scientists. scientists. many and philosophers most to anathema is Chance Some of these determinisms (behavioral, biological, histori biological, (behavioral, these determinisms of Some Finally, Finally, Spatio-temporal Determinism Spatio-temporal Religious Religious claim that it will it be. that claim believed primarily for the simple reason that they eliminate ran they eliminate that reason the simple for believed primarily in the universe. chance dom But without determinisms thesemany what from be to different the world agnostic on the truth of determinism (and indeterminism). (and determinism the truth of on agnostic demonstrable have psychological) and language, cal-economic, limit thus and behaviors theyevidence do in fact that constrain determinism, of dogmas merely are others But freedom. human ible with Determinism. Compatibilists believe that as long as our our as long as believe that Determinism. with Compatibilists ible be can responsible then we chain in the causal cause one is Mind they think But every cause, reasonable. which is actions, our for are decisions, our including they are say modern some compatibilists Although Determinists. Einstein one possi The dimensions. the spatial like just exists, already that just now, are we where ahead of up there, out already is future ble and right. left our to blocks the city like a fatalist.” of calls “somewhat himself He this view. who holds pher of an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God. If God God. If knows benevolent omniscient, omnipotent, an of if And it. change to the power lacks obviously he the future, evil. of the problem leads to it assumed, is benevolence of universe” “block The tivity. theologians insist that God is unchanging and outside of time, in time, of outside and God unchanging that is insist theologians pre-determinism. to reduces which case predestination all of God. God of foreknowledge omniscience has the presumed God the of eye to (Aquinas’ equally present All times are events. totem simul 150 Chapter 9 nature,” that inany way puts constraints on human freedom. he dramatically announced lectures for publication as classicalthe theory, limit inthe of large numbers of particles. Werner Heisenberg correspondstoo to ordinary Newtonian physics limit. inthe as velocities go classicaltothe theory zero. beyondgoes classical mechanics, but it asymptotically approaches of light. speed the ofcase moving at velocities that are a significantfraction of have grown more and more passing accurate decade. with every course, just atheory. hereisms are described just basically . stands out case. as aspecial theLawsDo ofPhysics Deny HumanFreedom? 1 There is nothingthelaws in of physics, or anywider “laws of When The most important refinement the is quantum mechanics of Thegrand next refinement was Einstein’s theory, general but it To and revised sure, has refined, be been first theory the the for But it then was confirmed experimentally, thatby observations and theological, fanciful nomological the logical, All determin determinisms the listedOf all here, physical determinism physics is no longer pledged to ascheme of deterministic law.” “It is aconsequence of advent the of quantum the that theory Eddington (2005) Arthur Stanley Eddington ’s classical mechanics an at was idea also first, of Albert Einstein and and The Nature of the Physical World Neils Bohr ’s of relativity theory special . Again, it corresponds to revised his 1927Gifford revised Determinisms , there 1

- 151

Chapter 9