Pre-determinism is the idea that the future is already laid out, pre-determined, such that it is inalterable, even if you have specific knowledge of this pre-determined future. Determinism in the more general sense does not have this limitation. In general determinism, while the future is definitely determined by the present, someone in the present who has specific knowledge of the future could, in principle, use this knowledge to alter the actual outcome.

So, if I happened to have a snippet of The Plan of the Universe, and it said "When you come to this fork in the road, you will take the left path," in a pre-determined universe, since this is The Plan of the Universe, then I will necessarily take the left path. However, in a merely determined universe, I can use this knowledge to purposefully thwart The Plan of the Universe, and choose instead to take the right path.

It is rather trivial to prove that the universe is not pre-determined. You can easily write a computer program which outputs either 1 or 0. If the input is 1, it outputs 0, and if the input is 0, it outputs 1. When the program starts, it prompts: "Please enter the known, pre-determined outcome of this program (1 or 0):"

If someone with knowledge of the pre-determined future outcome A inputs A, then the output will necessarily not be A. Thus, the outcome A was not specific knowledge of the pre-determined future, disproving pre-determinism by contradiction. If someone tries to keep the pre-determined outcome A valid by inputing the opposite result (if A is 1, then inputting 0, or if A is 0, inputting 1), then they have not actually supplied the program with specific knowledge of the future; they have in effect lied to the program. Thus, lying to the program does not support pre-determinism. Only by entering the true value of A are you actually supplying specific knowledge of the future, and in this case, the program will thwart the pre-determined plan. You cannot both supply the program with knowledge of A and also have A be the actual outcome.

So, pre-determinism and post-determinism are not the same. Unfortunately, many people (it seems you included), have the idea that they are the same, and any time you talk about determinism, they have this wacky notion that what you're really talking about is pre-determinism. It amounts to a straw man, when they start to say things like, "Well, if you're a determinist, then why should we hold anyone responsible for crime? After all, they were going to commit the crime anyway, they had no choice!" Only if they are thinking about pre-determinism does that objection make any sense.

I barely understood your English there. Whew! I think you meant that we are only able to take advantage of post-determinism after we become self-sufficient, because when we're born the primary determining factor of our lives is the circumstances we're born into.

Well, yes, but that's not the same thing as pre-determinism. Again, the future is not in place yet.

As I mentioned briefly, post-determinism is just a restatement of general determinism, with the emphasis placed on the here and now. So, a child, in the here and now, can only affect the future to a small extent. They don't have the skills and knowledge to take care of themselves. They are limited by the circumstances they find themselves in, in the here and now. But the same is true of adults, just to a lesser degree. Part of the here and now is our situation and its limitations. But that still means that what we do here and now, given these limitations, will still determine the future. Post-determinism is still determinism. There's no magical free will to magically lift you out of your circumstances and allow every child to achieve his or her greatest dreams.

I mean, if anything, post-determinism should highlight the importance of how the here and now limits our choices. I can only act from the here and now, I can't magically do anything I want. That would be the opposite of determinism.

Yeah, this goes to a more psychological concern about how people tend to live in the past or live in the future, rather than living in the here and now. I guess it's somewhat related to my phrasing of post-determinism. When you live in the past, as the woman you mention is, you see yourself as a product of past events, and since you cannot change the past, then you are helpless to change at all! That's again, a straw man of determinism that possibly post-determinism could help someone to break out of.

Instead of seeing yourself as a frozen product of the past, see yourself as a fluid source of the future. The only time you can ever change anything is in the present moment. The past is history, and the future doesn't exist yet. In order to create it, you have to act now. It's a subtle change in perspective that can break you out of old patterns.

     I was reading about free will on Wikipedia, and I encountered the word Compatibilism. This word seems to be very close to what you’re describing with post-determinism. Are these two words different, and if so in what way are they different?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

 

Well, the masses clearly refute lots of things. One of my favorites simply must be that of common sense.

 

All joking aside, I don't follow the idea of post determinism. Sure, the future unfolds from the past, so if I see a rock flying through the air, it is reasonable to assert that the rock was caused to do something that rocks do not do spontaneously.

 

However, this seems to break down when you consider more complicated systems.

 

If I look up in the sky and see an airplane flying through the air, it is reasonable to assume that the airplane was caused to do so by some determinitive agent. Here is where the idea breaks down for me:

 

What is the single factor that determined the behavior of the airplane? From the perspective of someone standing on the ground, I do not see how I can know that. Mind you, my perspective is not casually related to anything to do with the airplane but even so, if the future is to unfold from the past, what does that tell us?

 

First, there is some guy in an office in the airline's headquarters who determined that the aircraft with tail number xcd3952qb will take off form Boston at 10:00am and arrive at Seattle at 12:00 local time.

 

However, the passenger in seat 36D has a heart attack halfway there and the plane has to make an unscheduled stop in Chicago. That man had a heart attack because he forgot to take his aspirin that morning. He forgot to take his aspirin due to some distraction.

 

Really, you can carry the logic back as far as you want to but in the form that I place it, it is a time reversed version of:

 

If not for a nail the shoe would not have be lost, if not for a shoe the horse would not have been lost...

 

Here, I ask you to consider the butterfly effect. Sure, there is a sense in which a butterfly flapping it's wings a thousand years ago led to a tsunami in the Pacific a couple of years ago. However, if I follow the idea of postdeterminism, the butterfly flapped its wings due to some past chain of causes.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

With that much as background,let me ask you a question:

 

If pre-determinism is to be rejected, then shall we reject post determinism on the ground that is is T symmetrically reversible?

 

[Edit: Because I accidently posted twice some how.  In regard to my earlier comment as long as you keep using the word determinism in any way someone will probably confuse(intentionally or not) what you’re saying with pre-determinism.  Maybe you need a completely different word to say the same thing.]                                                                    

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

I'll have to ponder that one. Thanks for the suggestion!

This subject is mental masturbation. It is the nature/nurture debate in another form. It is the dramatic conflict between "the tide of evil" and the hero. It is the moral conflict between going along with the crowd and doing what is right.

ALL imagined answers are worthless speculation until we have the scientific means to conduct experimental history and observe the results.

As that is not expected any time soon, or perhaps we are living in an experiment gone wrong, there is no possible way to determine which if right or if either of them or right or even if an answer is possible.

 

Your comment is useless whining.

Read the very first paragraph of the original post, where I laid out clearly the practical use of this discussion. It is to improve communication. Your comment offered nothing useful to it.

What do you mean the subject cannot have an answer?

In natural's defence, though I don't necessarily agree that the distinction needs to be made (though it might improve communication), in every necessary and even obvious way, the current state of the universe (and those states yet to happen; the future) is a causal chain linking back to its inception.  It might not be a practical observation, but it is certainly true.

Do you care to elaborate on how it's no different from 'angels on the heads of pins and the like'?

 

Well, to be fair, I do think there's such a thing as mental masturbation. Some ideas just have no practical use at all, one way or the other. In many ways, God is such an idea. Pretty much any discussion about what God really is is mental masturbation.

However, I think the main thing that people overlook is that *belief* in God *does* have practical implications, as we see in American politics, for example. Thus, there is value in understanding the various concepts of god in order to challenge people's beliefs.

Freewill/determinism is about the compatibility of rigourous science with subjective judgments of morality, for example. While we may never know if the universe is *actually* deterministic, or if it involves indeterministic elements such as true randomness, this is not what people are really arguing about. They are arguing about what it would mean *if* the universe was deterministic or not.

So, arguing for determinism, especially the compatibilist kind, is an effort to get people to be able to accept that it is possible to have a scientific worldview that integrates our notions of morality into it. The practical implications of this are obvious: Those who reject determinism will be more likely to reject science, and more likely to accept non-rational forms of morality, such as Divine Command or whatever.

As to why some people complain about such discussions? I think there are different reasons. Lack of understanding of the topic. They might think there are more relevant or salient topics that deserve discussion more, rather than 'wasting time' on 'mental masturbation'.

Mostly, though, in my experience, there are two reasons that drive me nuts: Aversion to conflict, and complacency. Aversion to conflict goes like, "Hey, we're trying to have a nice conversation about love and fluffy bunnies and everyone getting along. Please keep your contentious philosophy to yourself." Complacency goes like, "What does this have to do with my daily life of waking up, going to work, vegging out in front of the TV, screwing my S/O, and passing out every night? Let's talk about something mundane and pointless, like shopping and/or sports."

My purpose in this thread is to develop a way of expressing the idea of compatibilism that bypasses the common misunderstandings. I'm both trying to influence free-will libertarians and also to influence those determinists who get caught up in endless arguments about free will. If they use a clearer language, they can also bypass these common misunderstandings.

Another side-effect that I think is useful is that understanding the difference between pre-determinism and post-determinism can help lift a feeling of fatalism and hence confront some forms of complacency that I've encountered (if the future is pre-determined and unchangeable, then why bother to do anything?).

I read the post finally. Had to google search it. I do the bulk of my posting in the general and atheist vs theist boards. I definitely see what you're driving at. What you really want to do is kill fatalism. But fatalism and determinism are two names for the same idea. No matter how you dress it up, determinism is still fatalistic. I think the pre in predeterminism comes from the initial state. If you rewind time under determinism you will eventually reach the initial state thus turning it in to predeterminism.

I too would like to have an alternative to fatalism. But until we observe some interaction that is not governed by a set force with exacting precision we won't have that alternative. That is why I'd like quantum research to turn up some sort of random interaction. Short of that we have no reason to assume that we are somehow above the control of the fundamental forces. I would say if you want an alternative, go with the all possible universes take on reality, that's what I do.