Is determinism correct?

[Guardia Rossa]

I have always been more akin to determinism, be it apocaliptical (Not in the religious sense), economic (social-democrat), stageist (early-"leninist") or social/materialist determinist (now?)

What do you guys think about determinism and what are your views on the matter?

EDIT: Please refrain from criticizing the title, my ideas, my style of writing, and anything not related to determinism. Thanks!

[ckaihatsu]

I have always been more akin to determinism, be it apocaliptical (Not in the religious sense), economic (social-democrat), stageist (early-"leninist") or social/materialist determinist (now?)

What do you guys think about determinism and what are your views on the matter?

EDIT: Please refrain from criticizing the title, my ideas, my style of writing, and anything not related to determinism. Thanks!


There's a common phrase, particularly in the African American community, of 'Everything happens for a reason', which, I suppose, could be thought of as a basic 'determinism', or cause-and-effect.

[Guardia Rossa]

I have formulated a weird "theory" over time, I'm compelled to think on it and post it later, but I want to know if determinism itself can be criticized.

[ckaihatsu]

I have formulated a weird "theory" over time, I'm compelled to think on it and post it later, but I want to know if determinism itself can be criticized.


It's always a good practice to begin by defining terms -- what do *you* mean by 'determinism', exactly -- ?

[Guardia Rossa]

A theory/philosophy that believes that our actions are not free, that we don't have the choice of directing our lifes, that it is determined by something else.

[Tim Cornelis]

One form of determinism can be correct, while another incorrect. We can contest that the economic base is the sole driving force of development and we wouldn't be economic determinists, but we could still say that our brains simply do mere mechanical responses to external stimuli. This is my personal opinion -- which isn't very solid or thoroughly researched. Historical materialism has a dialectical form of causality, so isn't determinist. Structure determines agency, but agency also acts back upon structure. Yet, agency is itself a mechanical process.

Dialectical causation in social reality, mechanical causation in natural reality, in my humble opinion. This puts me at odds with Engels, whom criticised this type of materialism:

"In opposition to this view there is determinism, which passed from French materialism into natural science, and which tries to dispose of chance by denying it altogether. According to this conception only simple, direct necessity prevails in nature. That a particular pea-pod contains five peas and not four or six, that a particular dog’s tail is five inches long and not a whit longer or shorter, that this year a particular clover flower was fertilised by a bee and another not, and indeed by precisely one particular bee and at a particular time, that a particular windblown dandelion seed has sprouted and another not, that last night I was bitten by a flea at four o’clock in the morning, and not at three or five o’clock, and on the right shoulder and not on the left calf – these are all facts which have been produced by an irrevocable concatenation of cause and effect, by an unshatterable necessity of such a nature indeed that the gaseous sphere, from which the solar system was derived, was already so constituted that these events had to happen thus and not otherwise."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1883/don/ch07c.htm

[Guardia Rossa]

That a particular pea-pod contains five peas and not four or six, that a particular dog’s tail is five inches long and not a whit longer or shorter, that this year a particular clover flower was fertilised by a bee and another not, and indeed by precisely one particular bee and at a particular time, that a particular windblown dandelion seed has sprouted and another not, that last night I was bitten by a flea at four o’clock in the morning, and not at three or five o’clock, and on the right shoulder and not on the left calf – these are all facts which have been produced by an irrevocable concatenation of cause and effect, by an unshatterable necessity of such a nature indeed that the gaseous sphere, from which the solar system was derived, was already so constituted that these events had to happen thus and not otherwise."

That's basically what I think. But with a more dense explanation of cause and effect. I'm still figuring out this explanation.

[Guardia Rossa]

Dialectical causation in social reality, mechanical causation in natural reality, in my humble opinion.

Sorry for double-posting, we are here discussing things because we are determined in this discussion by our past, if the german revolution had succeeded we wouldn't be here as Revleft wouldn't exist (But then again, there was no way the german revolution could succeed given the circumstances, this circumstances result of previous personal, social and global circumstances... See?)

My idea, basically, is that mechanical interactions since the big bang are nothing but a big cause-effect, as no energy can come out of nowhere and no energy can disappear, there is a infinite number of circumstances that lead to other circumstances and cannot lead to other circumstances because it is built in the circumstance itself the only path it can take.

That's why from a Alternate History fan I came to disgust it. (Except on the pure alternate histories, the ones built not for fun but for the understanding of the interactions between variables that drive history)

So, to me, if you know all the variables at a certain time, and know how these variables operate, you can predict certainly the path the progression of history will take, because we are locked to our present, wich was built by our past and wich determines our future.

And by all variables, I'm talking about not SOCIAL variables, but personal variables as well.

This is a rude presentation of my philosophy.

[ckaihatsu]

A theory/philosophy that believes that our actions are not free, that we don't have the choice of directing our lifes, that it is determined by something else.


What I'm hearing is that it's easy to personally / individually feel 'swamped' by the overarching deterministic social reality, which, if taken to one conceivable "logical conclusion", would totally *preclude* the individual's subjective personal life experience altogether (thus 'nullifying' all literature as being 'redundant', for example).

What's missing, of course, is any consideration of *scale* -- an objectively real physical dimension in which many things happen concurrently that may be dialectically related and intertwined, while yet retaining their own distinctivenesses and individualities.

Got a diagram, in a couple of renderings, for this kind of thing:


[6] Worldview Diagram

http://s6.postimg.org/50sd92sq9/6_Worldview_Diagram.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/87mwspd65/full/)


Worldview Diagram

http://s6.postimg.org/qjdaikuwh/120824_Worldview_Diagram.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/axvyymiy5/full/)

[Tim Cornelis]

Note that Engels is not in agreement with the explanation of mechanical materialism he gave (while you and I are). Just for the record.

But I don't see why you'd need to give up on 'alternate history'. It's just fantasy anyway.

[Guardia Rossa]

What I'm hearing is that it's easy to personally / individually feel 'swamped' by the overarching deterministic social reality, which, if taken to one conceivable "logical conclusion", would totally *preclude* the individual's subjective personal life experience altogether (thus 'nullifying' all literature as being 'redundant', for example).

What's missing, of course, is any consideration of *scale* -- an objectively real physical dimension in which many things happen concurrently that may be dialectically related and intertwined, while yet retaining their own distinctivenesses and individualities.

Got a diagram, in a couple of renderings, for this kind of thing: BLATANTLY HORRENDOUSLY HUMONGOUS IMAGES I'M SAYING WORDS I DON'T KNOW THE MEANING BECAUSE AAAAAH

If you read my writing, I don't forget the scale at all. I think that there is no thing ABOVE us, but a thing BEHIND us, in all senses of the scale - Personal, structural, social, etc... - wich is our history and our circumstances, derived from it. There is no forgetting of personal though or though in general. It is not mechanistic. EDIT: It is somewhat historicism and materialicism (Correct word here? Or just Materialism can be used?)


Note that Engels is not in agreement with the explanation of mechanical materialism he gave (while you and I are). Just for the record.

But I don't see why you'd need to give up on 'alternate history'. It's just fantasy anyway.

I could see it from the tone of his "voice" in the start :P

I know, I know, but people honestly believe that absurd things such as mongols trading place with germans would greatly impact history (As if the mongols and their culture existed magically, and not driven by local circumstances, and that they would remain horse archers in Germany) while ignoring my scientific reasonings for how a Roman Empire could survive if it adopted a feudal-esque structure (Much like the Iqta) even if in a HRE-esque form.

[Guardia Rossa]

Compare it with Marx writing that the ideas of an era are the ideas of that era's ruling class. I claim that the ideas of an era are the ideas of an ruling class built on the previous ideas, wich were built on the previous ideas, etc... wich were determined by the material circunstances at first but also determined progressively by the past ideas while at the same time also determined by the present material conditions.... I guess you understood. If not, I can re-phrase that. My writing is horrendous and incomprehensible babbling even to me sometimes

[Guardia Rossa]

This also acts on personal scale. You cannot get a Rousseau in the Roman Empire not only because there are not the macro-deterministic factors don't exist, but also because the personal experiences that drove to the emergence of such a person as Rousseau were impossible.

[ckaihatsu]

If you read my writing, I don't forget the scale at all. I think that there is no thing ABOVE us, but a thing BEHIND us, in all senses of the scale - Personal, structural, social, etc... - wich is our history and our circumstances, derived from it. There is no forgetting of personal though or though in general.


Okay, then with this I'd say you have a working definition of 'determinism'.





It is not mechanistic. EDIT: It is somewhat historicism and materialicism (Correct word here? Or just Materialism can be used?)


Well, it *is* mechanistic, in the sense of inescapably material causes-and-effects. So, yes, it *is* historicist and materialist.

What *you* seem to be wrestling with is the *complexity* of practically innumerable historical causes, at all scales, to certain *effects* that have empirically emerged, into actual fact. Got a diagram for that, too, btw:


Order - Complexity - Complication - Chaos

http://s6.postimg.org/b8fujhmgh/130421_order_complexity_complication_chaos.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/s8yqs5zhp/full/)


Here's a *bonus* diagram, too, that's relevant here. You're welcome. (grin)


Consciousness, A Material Definition



http://s6.postimg.org/567knh33l/2520219100046342459hj_Klk_C_fs.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/3r5zyr20d/full/)

[Guardia Rossa]

I'm already growing tired of seeing this diagrams three times a day :rolleyes: :lol:
But I hadn't seen the last one.

It is not mechanicist in the sense it isn't a deterministic philosophy ruled by the natural sciences (That's what I think when I hear mechanicist, mechanical determinism, but you might correct me if I'm wrong)

[Redistribute the Rep]

I'll direct you to this Stephan Hawking lecture:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/does-god-play-dice.html

[Guardia Rossa]

I know, quantum physics, blablabla...
I will not account for it. It is not a finished theory, there is no proof that it can't be rationalized and predicted (And I don't even know if humans will ever be able to rationalize and establish a predictable pattern or way-of-being of the quantum physics)

That's also why my theory is flawed, because we cannot account for all the variables. That is why every single complex and all-encompassing theories are flawed. We don't know too much things to be able to create universal laws of development of history.

[olahsenor]

Determinism stems from eight to nine principles: class struggle, patriarchal domination, sexism, racism, oppression, sex and political discrimination and the like. These are realities all of us face in our everyday lives. If these do not exist, then determinism is void ab initio.

[ckaihatsu]

I'm already growing tired of seeing this diagrams three times a day :rolleyes: :lol:


(grin)


If you use a tablet for your alarm clock you can wake up in the morning to them as well -- !


x D





But I hadn't seen the last one.


Yup. They're all at tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-diagrams-revleft.





It is not mechanicist in the sense it isn't a deterministic philosophy ruled by the natural sciences (That's what I think when I hear mechanicist, mechanical determinism, but you might correct me if I'm wrong)


Yes -- this is where I'd hope that the 'Worldview Diagram' (the flat one) is pertinent here.... Note that the green-colored outer zone of 'objective (natural) reality' is *entirely* within (scientific) 'expectations', because of nature's (predictable) mechanical nature that you've indicated.

But all *human activity*, situated 'within' nature, is more subject to *observation* and even (subjective) *activity*, especially the further 'inward' -- smaller-scale -- one goes.

Also, here's yet another diagram, with mechanistic 'nature' at the *bottom*, in terms of human-social-scale:


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision



http://s6.postimg.org/nmlxvtqlt/1_History_Macro_Micro_Precision.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/zbpxjshkd/full/)

[olahsenor]

Slavery is unforgivable. Determinism is. Logic of argument rules that if a situation cannot be corrected through reform or peaceful means, then an armed insurrection is the only recourse, hence, the dictatorship of the proletariat. Not even the bourgeoisie, if they become assimilated into the workforce under socialism would not insist being paid and would raise hell if not.:laugh:

[Comrade #138672]

Determinism can mean a lot of different things.

But in the broadest scientific sense, I believe that determinism is correct, i.e., if we would know the initial state of the universe at time 0, given that we would know the position and momentum of every particle in the universe, then it is pre-determined what the state of the universe is at any time t.

Some people would argue that quantum mechanics disproves determinism, but this is not necessarily the case. Quantum mechanics is a probabilistic model describing the possible positions of a particle as a probability distribution, but it does not explain what causes the appearance of a "superposition" and a "wave-function collapse". There are deterministic explanations for quantum mechanics, e.g., pilot-wave theory (http://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality/). I find pilot-wave theory fascinating, because it is so simple (not the mathematics, of course -- but the general intuition behind it) and elegant, and helps to demystify quantum mechanics, and yet has been so heavily ignored.