What does determinism profess?
It professes that those parts of the universe already laid down absolutely
appoint and decree what the other parts shall be. The future has no ambiguous
possibilities bidden in its womb; the part we call the present is compatible
with only one totality. Any other future complement than the one fixed from
eternity is impossible. The whole is in each and every part, and welds it with
the rest into an absolute unity, an iron block, in which there can be no
equivocation or shadow of turning.
With earth's first clay they did the last man knead,
And there of the last harvest sowed the seed.
And the first morning of creation wrote
What the last dawn of reckoning shall read.
Indeterminism, on the contrary, says that the parts have a certain amount of
loose play on one another, so that the laying down of one of them does not
necessarily determine what the others shall be. It admits that possibilities
may be in excess of actualities, and that things not yet revealed to our
knowledge may really in themselves be ambiguous. Of two alternative futures
which we conceive, both may now be really possible; and the one becomes
impossible only at the very moment when the other excludes it by becoming real
itself. Indeterminism thus denies the world to be one unbending unit of fact.
It says there is a certain ultimate pluralism in it; and, so saying, it
corroborates our ordinary unsophisticated view of things. To that view,
actualities seem to float in a wider sea of possibilities from out of which
they are chosen; and, somewhere, indeterminism says, such possibilities exist,
and form a part of truth.
Determinism, on the contrary, says they exist nowhere, and that necessity on
the one hand and impossibility on the other are the sole categories of the
real. Possibilities that fail to get realized are, for determinism, pure
illusions: they never were possibilities at all. There is nothing inchoate, it
says, about this universe of ours, all that was or is or shall be actual in it
having been from eternity virtually there. The cloud of alternatives our minds
escort this mass of actuality withal is a cloud of sheer deceptions, to which
"impossibilities" is the only name that rightfully belongs.
The issue, it will be seen, is a perfectly sharp one, which no eulogistic
terminology can smear over or wipe out. The truth must lie with one side or the
other, and its lying with one side makes the other false.
(William James - The Dilemma of Determinism.)
P.S. Yes, in James's time there were determinists who defied these categories,
a determinism that, "says its real name is freedom; for freedom is only
necessity understood, and bondage to the highest is identical with true
freedom." But James is not saying that this Orwellian nonsense makes any sense.
True freedom is necessity and bondage? That's drivel. In the very next lines,
in fact, James tells us what he thinks about their loose use of the word
freedom. "Now, all this is a quagmire of evasion under which the real issue of
fact has been entirely smothered."
p.s.s. As for Steve's suggestion that James is down with thought experiments
that rewind the determining causal forces and such, here's how James actually
conclude his thought experiment. He's trying to show the determinists how silly
their reasoning is, actually:
If, as good determinists, you now begin to affirm, what all good determinists
punctually do affirm, that in the nature of things I couldn't have gone through
Oxford Street,--had I done so it would have been chance, irrationality,
insanity, a horrid gap in nature,--I simply call your attention to this, that
your affirmation is what the Germans call a Machtspruch, a mere conception
fulminated as a dogma and based on no insight into details. ...
But what a hollow outcry, then, is this against a chance which, if it were
presented to us, we could by no character whatever distinguish from a rational
necessity! I have taken the most trivial of examples, but no possible example
could lead to any different result.....
The more one thinks of the matter, the more one wonders that so empty and
gratuitous a hubbub as this outcry against chance should have found so great an
echo in the hearts of men. It is a word which tells us absolutely nothing about
what chances, or about the modus operandi of the chancing; and the use of it as
a war cry shows only a temper of intellectual absolutism, a demand that the
world shall be a solid block, subject to one control,--which temper, which
demand, the world may not be found to gratify at all.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
