When I get into discussions of free will and intelligence and the nature of things, I often point out that the universe is deterministic. In its strictest form, determinism says that everything that will happen is as good as happened already, that everything is perfectly predictable. However, the type of determinism that I subscribe to is looser, and based on science. It is basically this:
Everything that occurs happens in accordance with strict rules.
Now, this doesn't say anything about predictability, and indeed we shall see that the predictability is far from perfect. However, I hold that my statement is a statement of determinism: everything is determined at a certain level of abstraction - nothing occurs that does not follow very definite patterns.
I will now proceed to throw three wrenches into the works and show how my statement defeats them.
1. Measurement problems
There are certain apparently nondeterministic processes, like the double pendulum. An arbitrarily small change in the initial conditions can cause a large change in the resulting motion. However, the process is actually deterministic - it is just that, to predict the motion, infinite precision of the initial conditions is needed, and this is physically impossible. It is a limitation in the measurement, not the process - the actual system follows very strict, deterministic rules. This applies to all related chaos theory-type problems.
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle may appear to come under this category as well, but that is based on a misconception.
2. Quantum probabilities
At the microscopic level, quantum mechanics is not all deterministic in the traditional sense. However, it still follows strict rules. The probabilities involved in quantum mechanics are well-defined. When you have a probability curve, it means that not all choices are equally likely. This is a form of determinism - there are clear constraints on the future. These probabilities exist for repeatable processes, so that it can be shown the probabilities exist. This is because all of quantum mechanics is based on equations that are defined as probabilities. It is our natural, innate understanding that predisposes us to expect determinism in a low-level form like classical mechanics and to think of quantum uncertainty as nondeterministic. It's not that there's only one way for a process to unfold, but there's only one way for a process to operate. Nonuniform probability distributions are a form of (weak) determinism.
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle falls under this category. It defines a limit not on measurement, but on state. For example, a particle constrained in position must have a certain uncertainty in its momentum, and this gives rise to higher lowest-energy states. Virtual particles are another example.
3. Stochastic processes
Stochastic processes, such as Brownian motion, are another source of randomness. They are truly random, as they are not based solely on initial conditions. However, they still do not weaken my statement of determinism, since all stochastic processes that exist are governed by equations describing the actions of its constituents that give rise to the random output. In general, they are also constrained by probability distributions, which as stated above is a form of determinism.
So the point is that the laws of physics constrain all that occurs in well-defined ways. This is the form of weak determinism I subscribe to, and from this many of my beliefs follow.
A short note: It could be argued, perhaps, that the probability inherent in so many physical processes is where god interacts with the world, or where the mind interacts with the brain. I would give this thought more weight if the output of the processes were uniformly random (that is, all values are equally likely), instead of having a distribution.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Down the rabbit hole
I've come up with a metaphor to explain how some of my beliefs work. It's not totally fleshed out, but I figured I'd present the preliminary version.
The very core of my beliefs (although I like to refer to them as my understandings) is that in the end, it's all just physics. The universe is nothing more than matter and energy acting in well-defined ways. One of the immediate consequences of this is that almost all aspects of the human experience don't have independent existence. For example, free will. Our brains operate according to the laws of physics, and therefore operate like machines (quantum uncertainty is little more than nuance at this level). This means that there is no such thing as choice - everything is more or less determined. Another example is meaning, purpose, etc. Meaning is a human construct. Physical reality, what actually is does not include meaning.
Now, people often get tripped up by that. They start talking about their ability to make choices, and how the universe can't be meaningless because we perceive meaning. Or they ask why do I continue living if there's no free will and no meaning. The problem is that they're looking at the wrong level. They're looking at the human experience level, which is separate from the physical reality level. For almost all intents and purposes at the human experience level, free will exists. But then once I cede that, they can't make the jump with me to free will not existing on the lower level.
This is where the metaphor comes in. The metaphor is the Matrix. The connection I'm making is between the existence of concepts (e.g., free will or meaning) at different levels and the physical actions of people inside and outside the Matrix, where the Matrix is basically standing for human experience.
People are hooked into the Matrix. They have a physical body outside the Matrix and a representation inside it. In the same way, I exist both at the physical reality level (there are certain patterns of atoms that persist in time) and at the human experience level (as I perceive myself to exist). Now, all physical actions within the Matrix (like walking around) do not have independent existence - that is, without the Matrix, they do not exist. Similarly, concepts within human experience such as free will do not exist at the physical reality level. However, inside the Matrix, there's no reason to act as if you can't walk around. This is how, within human experience, there is good reason to treat free will as if it exists.
That's about as far as I've taken it at this point. I feel like there's still some room to grow the metaphor a little, about how understanding that you are in the Matrix enables one to do things not normally possible, but there's potential for that to be misinterpreted. And of course, in the metaphor, there's no way to exit the Matrix.
The very core of my beliefs (although I like to refer to them as my understandings) is that in the end, it's all just physics. The universe is nothing more than matter and energy acting in well-defined ways. One of the immediate consequences of this is that almost all aspects of the human experience don't have independent existence. For example, free will. Our brains operate according to the laws of physics, and therefore operate like machines (quantum uncertainty is little more than nuance at this level). This means that there is no such thing as choice - everything is more or less determined. Another example is meaning, purpose, etc. Meaning is a human construct. Physical reality, what actually is does not include meaning.
Now, people often get tripped up by that. They start talking about their ability to make choices, and how the universe can't be meaningless because we perceive meaning. Or they ask why do I continue living if there's no free will and no meaning. The problem is that they're looking at the wrong level. They're looking at the human experience level, which is separate from the physical reality level. For almost all intents and purposes at the human experience level, free will exists. But then once I cede that, they can't make the jump with me to free will not existing on the lower level.
This is where the metaphor comes in. The metaphor is the Matrix. The connection I'm making is between the existence of concepts (e.g., free will or meaning) at different levels and the physical actions of people inside and outside the Matrix, where the Matrix is basically standing for human experience.
People are hooked into the Matrix. They have a physical body outside the Matrix and a representation inside it. In the same way, I exist both at the physical reality level (there are certain patterns of atoms that persist in time) and at the human experience level (as I perceive myself to exist). Now, all physical actions within the Matrix (like walking around) do not have independent existence - that is, without the Matrix, they do not exist. Similarly, concepts within human experience such as free will do not exist at the physical reality level. However, inside the Matrix, there's no reason to act as if you can't walk around. This is how, within human experience, there is good reason to treat free will as if it exists.
That's about as far as I've taken it at this point. I feel like there's still some room to grow the metaphor a little, about how understanding that you are in the Matrix enables one to do things not normally possible, but there's potential for that to be misinterpreted. And of course, in the metaphor, there's no way to exit the Matrix.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Objectivism
[This was a forum post I made in response to a guy touting Objectivism.]
Objectivism, ugh. First off, the proposition that there are objective moral truths is by nature a supernatural claim. Since I don't believe in anything supernatural, Objectivism is right out.
Since I am a relativist (which I can easily defend as the only consistent moral position for a philosophy without supernatural elements), morality is the set of rules a society agrees upon. Now, this is not to say there can't be guidelines. It's a fairly simple rational argument to make that civil and political rights and equality are necessary for this process to function correctly (that is, each member of society must be free to partake in the making of the rules). So civil and political equality are what we may call "inalienable" rights. I think it is far from clear that there exist similar economic rights (for example, the right to own land or the right to the entirety of the fruits of one's labor).
Your attack on government, taxation, etc. are based on the naive subset of relativist moral structures in which the role of society is deemed irrelevant. Well, ok - it's generally naive, but can also be rooted in greed and selfishness. Basically, society doesn't exist to take away your freedoms - instead, exactly as you think of it, its purpose to ensure self-fulfillment.
It's a little like people who hear about the prisoner's dilemma and reciprocal altruism, and take this to mean (or as evidence of) that being vindictive and not helping others if they have not helped you is the best strategy. You aren't seeing the forest for the trees. A game like Snowdrift explains how cooperation and even always-generous strategies can be beneficial to one's situation.
Now, you'll probably argue "Well, it's ok as long as it's voluntary - you can't force people to pay taxes." This is again a problem of not seeing the forest for the trees. It is beneficial for the members of a society to agree to create a government that can force its citizens to do certain things. A good example of this is taxation. Governments are necessary. You have to build roads. To have roads, sometimes you need to take people's lands (Would you rather not have interstate highways? If you are against eminent domain, you are against having interstates.). To build roads, you need money. Once you have a road, you can conceivably use tolls to pay for maintenance, such that the only people who pay to maintain a road are the ones using it. However, to build it, you need money, and you have no way to know who will use and who won't. Therefore, it is in your interest that the government take money from everybody - sometimes you'll help pay for a road you won't use, sometimes somebody else will help pay for a road they won't use but you will - but if it wasn't forced, then people who would use the road could refuse to pay for it (the road would still get built if enough people needed it badly enough).
Government taxation of this kind is sort of a form of insurance. You are making sure that things get paid for by people who will benefit, at the expense of sometimes paying for things from which they won't benefit. Again, the short-sightedness and also greed/selfishness of people often obscures for them the benefits they will reap from certain things - allowing people with a broader view (e.g., politicians and bureaucrats - remember that we're talking ideally here, not as the system stands today) to evaluate these things and then tell us what to do (i.e., enact laws) is a way of both delegating decision-making and ensuring that the selfishness of others doesn't cause them to skip out on their obligations.
An example of the above is public transportation. Public transport is paid for partially by people who don't use it. But viewing it as "This is theft because I don't use the service" is naive. Public transport keeps a lot of people off the road, especially commuter transport. If the whole populace wasn't paying into it, the fares would rise, which would cause ridership to drop, which would put a lot more cars on the road, especially during rush hour. Congestion would skyrocket. Paying taxes for public transport when you don't use it is about paying to keep congestion low.
Another problem with Objectivism and related philosophies is that the idea that everyone is rational and can make informed decisions on all things is just false. Not only are most people not rational, but most people are uninformed. Read up on rational ignorance. As I touched on earlier, part of government is a contract between the people and their representatives for the representatives to spend their time gathering and considering that information that the people don't have time for. The stipulation is that once the representatives make their decision based on the information, the people are going to abide by that. Again, this ends up benefiting the people.
Now, on to collectivism in its proper forms (government, taxation, etc. alone are not collectivism). The above arguments are absolute, whereas the following paragraph is more a matter of the discretion of a society. Beyond the basic provisions of a society and government as hinted at above, there are many different options for a society to treat itself. From a libertarian viewpoint to full socialism, they aren't inherently wrong, but rather different approaches that each society must consider and choose between.
The welfare state is a form of further insurance, basically insuring that all people are supported in the most basic form such that they can achieve happiness. If you look at de-regulated laissez-faire capitalism, it tends toward a pseudo-feudalism where there are powerful economic entities to which most people are subservient. It's not a hard argument to make that the people at the bottom levels of these kinds of hierarchies are being oppressed, that economic circumstances prohibit them from pursuing and certainly from achieving self-fulfillment. Protecting people from such economic oppression and providing all citizens with a suitable basis for achieving self-fulfillment is the goal of the welfare state. In fact, it's actually striving to achieve what you claim is your goal by recognizing the practical implications of economic strategies (If you are born into abject poverty with no hope of getting out of it, then you have no hope of self-fulfillment. Objectivism doesn't ever correctly recognize these situations.).
Objectivism, ugh. First off, the proposition that there are objective moral truths is by nature a supernatural claim. Since I don't believe in anything supernatural, Objectivism is right out.
Since I am a relativist (which I can easily defend as the only consistent moral position for a philosophy without supernatural elements), morality is the set of rules a society agrees upon. Now, this is not to say there can't be guidelines. It's a fairly simple rational argument to make that civil and political rights and equality are necessary for this process to function correctly (that is, each member of society must be free to partake in the making of the rules). So civil and political equality are what we may call "inalienable" rights. I think it is far from clear that there exist similar economic rights (for example, the right to own land or the right to the entirety of the fruits of one's labor).
Your attack on government, taxation, etc. are based on the naive subset of relativist moral structures in which the role of society is deemed irrelevant. Well, ok - it's generally naive, but can also be rooted in greed and selfishness. Basically, society doesn't exist to take away your freedoms - instead, exactly as you think of it, its purpose to ensure self-fulfillment.
It's a little like people who hear about the prisoner's dilemma and reciprocal altruism, and take this to mean (or as evidence of) that being vindictive and not helping others if they have not helped you is the best strategy. You aren't seeing the forest for the trees. A game like Snowdrift explains how cooperation and even always-generous strategies can be beneficial to one's situation.
Now, you'll probably argue "Well, it's ok as long as it's voluntary - you can't force people to pay taxes." This is again a problem of not seeing the forest for the trees. It is beneficial for the members of a society to agree to create a government that can force its citizens to do certain things. A good example of this is taxation. Governments are necessary. You have to build roads. To have roads, sometimes you need to take people's lands (Would you rather not have interstate highways? If you are against eminent domain, you are against having interstates.). To build roads, you need money. Once you have a road, you can conceivably use tolls to pay for maintenance, such that the only people who pay to maintain a road are the ones using it. However, to build it, you need money, and you have no way to know who will use and who won't. Therefore, it is in your interest that the government take money from everybody - sometimes you'll help pay for a road you won't use, sometimes somebody else will help pay for a road they won't use but you will - but if it wasn't forced, then people who would use the road could refuse to pay for it (the road would still get built if enough people needed it badly enough).
Government taxation of this kind is sort of a form of insurance. You are making sure that things get paid for by people who will benefit, at the expense of sometimes paying for things from which they won't benefit. Again, the short-sightedness and also greed/selfishness of people often obscures for them the benefits they will reap from certain things - allowing people with a broader view (e.g., politicians and bureaucrats - remember that we're talking ideally here, not as the system stands today) to evaluate these things and then tell us what to do (i.e., enact laws) is a way of both delegating decision-making and ensuring that the selfishness of others doesn't cause them to skip out on their obligations.
An example of the above is public transportation. Public transport is paid for partially by people who don't use it. But viewing it as "This is theft because I don't use the service" is naive. Public transport keeps a lot of people off the road, especially commuter transport. If the whole populace wasn't paying into it, the fares would rise, which would cause ridership to drop, which would put a lot more cars on the road, especially during rush hour. Congestion would skyrocket. Paying taxes for public transport when you don't use it is about paying to keep congestion low.
Another problem with Objectivism and related philosophies is that the idea that everyone is rational and can make informed decisions on all things is just false. Not only are most people not rational, but most people are uninformed. Read up on rational ignorance. As I touched on earlier, part of government is a contract between the people and their representatives for the representatives to spend their time gathering and considering that information that the people don't have time for. The stipulation is that once the representatives make their decision based on the information, the people are going to abide by that. Again, this ends up benefiting the people.
Now, on to collectivism in its proper forms (government, taxation, etc. alone are not collectivism). The above arguments are absolute, whereas the following paragraph is more a matter of the discretion of a society. Beyond the basic provisions of a society and government as hinted at above, there are many different options for a society to treat itself. From a libertarian viewpoint to full socialism, they aren't inherently wrong, but rather different approaches that each society must consider and choose between.
The welfare state is a form of further insurance, basically insuring that all people are supported in the most basic form such that they can achieve happiness. If you look at de-regulated laissez-faire capitalism, it tends toward a pseudo-feudalism where there are powerful economic entities to which most people are subservient. It's not a hard argument to make that the people at the bottom levels of these kinds of hierarchies are being oppressed, that economic circumstances prohibit them from pursuing and certainly from achieving self-fulfillment. Protecting people from such economic oppression and providing all citizens with a suitable basis for achieving self-fulfillment is the goal of the welfare state. In fact, it's actually striving to achieve what you claim is your goal by recognizing the practical implications of economic strategies (If you are born into abject poverty with no hope of getting out of it, then you have no hope of self-fulfillment. Objectivism doesn't ever correctly recognize these situations.).
Summary of beliefs
I'm going to maintain this post as a summary of what I believe.
Philosophy
Morality
Politics
Religion
I will update this list periodically, adding and revising items as necessary, and adding links to relevant posts.
Philosophy
- I'm an atheist, although a more correct term is probably physics chauvinist.
- I maintain that all that exists are particles and energy, and that they are governed by strict (though probabilistic) laws [post].
Morality
- I'm a relativist.
- I consider any claim that there is an absolute morality separate from human constructs to be a supernatural claim.
Politics
- I'm a progressive.
- I believe that people have a moral responsibility to help one another, that this strategy is beneficial, and that it can be rationally determined based on deep-seated beliefs that are common to all humans.
Religion
- I believe that religion is damaging to society and will always be damaging and an impediment to progress. It has benefits, but its negative effects far outweigh the positives.
I will update this list periodically, adding and revising items as necessary, and adding links to relevant posts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)