Source: here.
Determinism
As we have no demonstrable evidence to the contrary, it is likely true that the universe operates as a quasi-deterministic symphony that writes itself in real time as the tangle of relationships described by physics play out. I say quasi-deterministic because quantum probabilities add spice to the details of the unfolding, but still in a prescriptive way. Most people have serious problems with this view, because life does not at all feel like it operates deterministically.(5) I get it. Truly, the “undetermined” sensation is not lost on me for a second! But so what? Why would the actual real universe as it exists before us care what notions and hang-ups I construct in my brain about how it works?
Mind-bendingly complex and cool things can emerge from “the stage”—as far as we know all 100% consistent with the laws of physics that we have carefully elucidated, and to which no replicable experiment has found exception. That’s a strong bit of evidence on the side of determinism: we can’t override the physics that makes our neurons do what they do, for instance. Life certainly feels undetermined and open-ended, because the complexity is so extraordinarily insane that the only conceivable way to reveal the outcome is to play it out with the actual full universe as expressed in unfathomably rich inter-relationships between all the particles. No one—including the universe itself—knows for sure exactly what comes next in every detail (though broad brush predictions about things like sunrise tend to be pretty solid). Just because it’s deterministic doesn’t mean there’s a plan or a script: just rules and scads of interactions.
So, if in rejecting the notion of determinism, someone says “what’s the point in getting up everyday if I’m just executing a script?”, then whatever they imagine the point to be is whacked in the context that determinism is actually the way of things. Something doesn’t make sense in their view of the world (which I will alternately label as worldview or cosmology), in a broken sort of way. In other words, if the only thing that makes sense to someone is to live in a world that is not deterministic, but the world is indeed deterministic, then that person’s sense-making of the world is essentially misguided. They have no authority to determine whether determinism is true or not, so what’s their coping strategy if—as mountains of evidence suggest—the universe turns out to be deterministic? Do they have a plan for that besides reactive rejection, or does it break their whole cosmology and leave them rudderless? What a shame, if they short-circuit based on their own chosen flaw: an unforced error.(5) I suppose they can also just never accept determinism and continue to be comfortable within their cosmology, fragile as it may be.
Tom's comment (द्रष्टुं नोद्यम्)
Determinism is the underlying principle of reality. Although there are fundamental laws of physics that govern the interactions of matter and energy, the universe is a vast, highly complex system that contains what we perceive as chaotic elements. Physical, biological, sociological, cultural, economic factors all in play . It should be appreciated that Open, Chaotic, Complex systems are inherently unpredictable. That is an attribute of the systems and a better model or better data does not make the system predictable. We are often surprised when life takes unexpected turns. Life does so because it can, because the 10,000 things interacting within the laws of life made it so. Determinism does not equal predictable!! The system potential outcomes have a probabilistic component, as the probabilities unfolds in the current moment they steer the future probabilities that can be twisted by future chaotic factors that have their moment to unfold. Emergent phenomena also appears in complex systems that are very difficult for us to understand in terms of their causal roots or predict as well. We know much, but should remain very humble in our full understanding of how this universe functions.
Free Will
It goes pretty similarly with the sensation of free will. Again, I get that our perception of the world convincingly fools us into mistaking agency for free will.(5) But what if that’s wrong? Yes, we have agency in that we are actors in this self-writing script and have impacts on the rest of the performance—impacts that are hatched by our own neurons without violating any laws of physics. But there’s no sign of a “soul” that can override the relationships between all the stuff that makes us up. If physics (e.g., neurochemistry) were that easy to override, then how can drugs gain the upper hand? How can anesthesia make us go completely blank for hours without even a sense of time (where does the soul go)?(5) Why does our sense of soul/awareness/consciousness coincide with our biological birth and subsequent development as biological beings? It’s dazzlingly impressive how resistant people can be to the notion that we are wholly corporeal beings. What a spectacle!
Anyway, it is unacceptable to many to suggest that we don’t have free will—which has every likelihood of being the case with no firm evidence to the contrary. Again, we don’t get to choose whether it’s true or not. If in someone’s mind there’s “no point” to living without free will, and indeed there’s no free will, then we have another case of a self-defeating choice of beliefs: another unforced error.
There was never a point at which you (as if separate from the physical implementation of your body/brain) could insert an override to what the neurons in your body were going to do. The illusion feels like a “free” choice, but free of what, exactly? Determinism (physics)?
In my view, there is no you to control the neurons in your body: no separate agent, somehow apart from and above (controlling) the material workings of neurons. Sounds like the definition of a soul to me.
The neurons are in control, and are you, in large part. Obeying physics, they have no freedom to do anything other than what particle interactions dictate via their arrangements and conditions.
Granted, those arrangements and conditions are wonderfully sophisticated, evolved to permit extraordinary organism-level coherent responses to external stimuli that we can call choices (“belonging” to the organism),
and those choices impact the external environment (thus an agent of change so that the organism possesses agency). But all proceeds according to deterministic processes beyond the control of some putative entity sitting apart.
If nothing outside of physics comes into play (I agree), then I accept the result that we have no override to thwart the (effectively) deterministic flow.
You’re illustrating the classic example of assuming there’s no point if you’re not in control. Your cosmology demands a point and purpose to your life.
I would say that construction is inconsistent with the actual universe,
yet an adaptive, convincing, and understandable mental model that may contribute to our success as a species.(5)
It’s like the utility of the mental model that a brick is solid, when in fact it’s mostly empty space and only acts impenetrable via electromagnetic interaction.(5)
The solid model might be wrong, but it’s effective.
Then why do we hold people accountable for crimes?
Because a successful social species that survives evolutionary pressures
must develop responses (e.g., neural structures) that operate for the common good (group survival).(4)
If a member has a “defective” mental construction that produces harmful results, the super-organism (community) must have a way to self-correct or it fails and disappears.(5)
Evolution operates simultaneously on many levels,
producing rather sophisticated codes for dealing with errant individuals.
We need not hold a soul accountable (even if that’s essentially how we frame it) in order to generate consequences for undesirable behavior (that presumably will enter the neural calculus as a relevant stimulus and deter such behaviors).
Why do I write and encourage people to think differently?
It’s my (neurons’) response to myriad stimuli,
producing yet more stimuli for others to consider.
Call it part of the adaptive pro-social package I inherited:
warning the community of a threat that they may not have perceived.(5)
Nothing about this denies my existence,
although I will deny that any part of my actions break rank with how my neurons react and that somehow I am their boss (they are me).
I deny that I am something bigger than my arrangement (relationships, information, evolution) of parts.
No astral plane on which I exist apart from and above the intricate physics pile.
To make such a statement is to go against the consensus of our society, the bulk of whom understandably trust the very convincing illusion that we are in full control (rather than being evolved to react reasonably so that we may impact our local conditions in ways that are favorable to our survival).
We likely don’t have the whole physics picture. But what are the chances that missing pieces even touch on this question? So far, nothing in the enormous list of contributions (e.g., gravity, electromagnetism, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics) has provided support for believing consciousness can override or control the mundane stuff:
quite the opposite, the more we learn.
But the world does not come crashing down after abandoning the free will cosmology.
In fact, I would say it becomes richer and more fascinating without the shortcut loophole.