Philosophy: Determinism Accurately Describes Reality

========== The Microcosm ========== Copenhagen's interpretation loses ground to other interpretations such as Bohm's Interpretation, which is a hidden variable theory. The Bohm interpretation posits that every particle has a definite position and momentum at all times, but we do not usually know what they are, though we do have limited information about them. The particles are guided by the wave function, which follows the Schrï¿½dinger equation. Like the Copenhagen interpretation, the Bohm interpretation is equally confirmed by experimental results. So, both theories have not been disproved as of yet and therefore my proposition is no less logically valid from a physics point of view than Con's. The incomplete nature of quantum physics at this moment can not give either interpretation soundness, but my opponent should know that the Copenhagen interpretation is not the only interpretation, nor is it at all a proven interpretation - thus thwarting his negation. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle says that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot both be known to arbitrary precision. It does NOT state that the position and momentum do not exist - simply that they can not be measured. Just because we can't measure them doesn't mean their positions and momentum don't exist, thereby making Con's argument useless. To conclude this point, there is inconclusive evidence that indeterminism exists at the atomic level. Also, the readers should note that my opponent is trying to enforce a physics view of indeterminism - which, by the way, is also against free will existing! ========== The Macrocosm ========== Con's argument asserts, "We have minds that have the ability to contain, process, and analyze information, and based on the analysis of that information, a person can choose freely how to react. " This is wrong for two reasons. First, every single action that we commit is a direct result of our brain and the chemical going-ons for which we are not completely in control. For instance, if I am predisposed to schizophrenia, I can't tell myself NOT to be predisposed to schizophrenia. Our brain tells us what to do, how to feel, what to think, etc. Indeed the only reason I can even type this argument is because my brain is communicating with the rest of the muscles in my body via the nervous system allowing my body to follow its commands. Similarly, when a person makes a decision, it is dependent upon their brain. Environment plus biology necessitate your actions. You're just reacting to stimuli; your brain learns reactions as time goes by thus developing personality. We know that personality is part biology (traits determined by genetics) and part environment (experiences and outside stimuli). Now, if our choices are dictated by genetics and stimuli, clearly we have no control over them. We cannot control the genetics that make us who we are, nor the experiences that we have. "Heredity establishes the limits of one's personality traits that can be developed, while the environment - represented by the cultural, social and situational factors - influence the actual development within the limits. .. Cultural factors are related to the cultural values earned by someone in the course of his/her life, especially during the period when his/her personality is formed. These cultural values have a great impact upon an individual's behavior. .. Situational factors emphasize or diminish some aspects of one's personality. For example, a person that has experienced recently one failure after another would not wish to be involved in another project - at least for a period of time - even if this particular one might be successful" [1]. As you can see, Con is completely wrong in asserting that we exercise our will over our experiences. The human being is at the mercy of these forces (behavioral factors and genetics), and is simply the instrument through which they are expressed. Con writes, "If a person is on a strict diet, they have a desire or urge to eat to appease the hunger, but may choose not to eat. .. The choice could go either way, and no prior action can trigger an inevitable reaction in that case. That person was free to choose. " This is completely false. The person's choice to not eat would be based on the fact that they're trying to lose weight, therefore their decision was the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs. Everything in the universe aligned to put the individual in the position to make that necessary and specific decision. Further, Con is wrong in exclaiming, "A person can clear their mind, disregard previous experiences, and make decisions that are not influenced by past experiences. This will enable free choices to be made, regardless of prior external agents or actions. " First of all, if you disregard previous occurrences, memories and experiences, then it wouldn't be YOU making the decision. Those are the very things that make up who you are. Additionally, the decision to clear your mind was pre-determined (the inevitable consequence of an antecedent state of affairs). =========== Other Arguments =========== "You can predict that the next domino in line will fall, but if this were true for reality, we should also be able to predict future outcomes in the same manner. " I'm surprised that Geo would put forth this idealistic argument. There is far too much information for human beings to be able to predict every future outcome. The individual factors that make up the entire universe are so minute that the human brain could never fathom such intricacy to the point where we would be able to determine everything. Con also says, "Human beings have made many *illogical and irrational* choices. Therefore, under determinism, irrationality and illogicality do not exist and every action is an inevitable, logical reaction to a prior condition. " This is a completely straw manned argument. Determinism says no such thing. Geo, please show me where determinism says that human choices can't be irrational. NAY. Determinism merely states that those choices were determined by factors outside of the individual's control, such as prior occurrences or the laws of nature. While we're on the subject of making random stuff up about determinism, I completely reject Co's point that, "Another point to be made is that something may be probable to occur after a certain action, but it cannot be proven that it will happen. " I've already explained that the human brain (at least for now) could never fathom such intricacy to the point where we would be able to determine everything. However, in retrospect, we can observe how determinism is valid. ====== Free Will ====== The only "argument" Con presents here is the idea that Sartre is not a determinist. Well, a lot of people aren't determinist. That isn't proof that determinism is false, therefore this was a completely irrelevant and unnecessary aspect of the debate. ======= Conclusion ======= Con concludes by stating that he has demonstrated determinism is not true for quantum particles; however, you can see from my microism rebuttal that this is certainly not the case. Additionally, Con states, "There can sometimes be multiple external agents and multiple possible reactions that a deterministic framework cannot account for. " Since all of Con's proposed examples have failed (I have demonstrated how they were determined), I'd like to invite Con to attempt to try and cite more examples of decisions without predetermined factors. Remember, just because one can Google "arguments against determinism" doesn't make their valid arguments sound. [1] . http://news.softpedia.com...