How could there be options in a deterministic world?

[Bahman]

To understand the implication of the question we need to understand what determinism is. Determinism is a doctrine that states that the future state of a system is uniquely determined in terms of the current state of the system. This means that there exists only one option, the future state, at any given time. We however without any doubt say that we experience options in our daily life. We pause and think about options and eventually choose one of them. The very existence of the pause means that the brain is also interrupted as well with the situation so one cannot say, as determinists say, that only one of the options is real. So options are real since otherwise, the state of the brain evolves deterministically without any pause one option is chosen and others are disregarded. Now that we established options are real we face the question of "How could there be options in a deterministic world?".

[LuckyR]

To understand the implication of the question we need to understand what determinism is. Determinism is a doctrine that states that the future state of a system is uniquely determined in terms of the current state of the system. This means that there exists only one option, the future state, at any given time. We however without any doubt say that we experience options in our daily life. We pause and think about options and eventually choose one of them. The very existence of the pause means that the brain is also interrupted as well with the situation so one cannot say, as determinists say, that only one of the options is real. So options are real since otherwise, the state of the brain evolves deterministically without any pause one option is chosen and others are disregarded. Now that we established options are real we face the question of "How could there be options in a deterministic world?".

I converse with Determinists routinely and they typically say that the appearance of options is an illusion, thus the actual outcome is the only possible outcome thus it is not an "option", it was predetermined.

I find the concept far fetched, ie an overly convoluted "solution" to give them the result they prefer.

[Carter Blunt]

In a deterministic world, that "pause" is simply a chain reaction of signals smashing against each other in accordance with physics. The signals in your brain are on their own trajectories, the same as if you threw a rubber ball in an empty room. It bounces around, but ultimately lands in accordance with its trajectory. Throw another ball, you haven't increased the choices of the first ball, you've just caused a chance for interference with it. Theoretically, that is what happens in your brain, only with trillions of molecules flying around.

[JohniJones]

There is no deterministic world because there is no world of natural objects. Nature does not draw outlines. Objects are defined by their boundaries and nature does not draw boundaries or outlines.
The determinism debate comes from one of the two major branches of philosophy, transcendental idealism and transcendental realism. Determinism is a strictly transcendental idealist doctrine. Kant and Wittgenstein explored this.

[Pattern-chaser]

To understand the implication of the question we need to understand what determinism is. Determinism is a doctrine that states that the future state of a system is uniquely determined in terms of the current state of the system. This means that there exists only one option, the future state, at any given time. We however without any doubt say that we experience options in our daily life. We pause and think about options and eventually choose one of them. The very existence of the pause means that the brain is also interrupted as well with the situation so one cannot say, as determinists say, that only one of the options is real. So options are real since otherwise, the state of the brain evolves deterministically without any pause one option is chosen and others are disregarded. Now that we established options are real we face the question of "How could there be options in a deterministic world?".

I converse with Determinists routinely and they typically say that the appearance of options is an illusion, thus the actual outcome is the only possible outcome thus it is not an "option", it was predetermined.

I find the concept far fetched, ie an overly convoluted "solution" to give them the result they prefer.

I look at it like a logic puzzle, and this is the 'solution' that came to me: I, as a normal (-ish) human being, have options, and I choose between them freely. This is an honest description of my personal perspective. Adopting a (deterministic) God's-Eye-View perspective, things look quite different — although I seem to have options, the ones I would choose are/were predetermined, and I could not have chosen otherwise.

N.B. My words above do not necessarily reflect my personal views, but only views I have constructed to offer one possible answer to the topic question, "How could there be options in a deterministic world?"

[Pattern-chaser]

"How could there be options in a deterministic world?".

At one extreme, a world in which there is no change is a static world, in which time effectively becomes meaningless.
At the other extreme, a world in which there is nothing but change is uncontrolled, unconstrained, unstructured, unordered — a random and chaotic world.
Of course, the possibilities that lie well within these extremes seem more likely to us, although even that seeming may be wishful thinking on our behalf.

In this context (above), I see determinism as a 'next-best' — "best"? — approach to a static world, a world where wishful thinking gives rise to a comfortable and reassuring dream, where there is consistency, order, and certainty. My view is that determinism is hiding from the truth of reality as we experience it, and live with/in it. It's a desperate attempt to pretend the world is, er, determined and reliable, and contains nothing upsetting like uncertainty.

[Bahman]

To understand the implication of the question we need to understand what determinism is. Determinism is a doctrine that states that the future state of a system is uniquely determined in terms of the current state of the system. This means that there exists only one option, the future state, at any given time. We however without any doubt say that we experience options in our daily life. We pause and think about options and eventually choose one of them. The very existence of the pause means that the brain is also interrupted as well with the situation so one cannot say, as determinists say, that only one of the options is real. So options are real since otherwise, the state of the brain evolves deterministically without any pause one option is chosen and others are disregarded. Now that we established options are real we face the question of "How could there be options in a deterministic world?".

I converse with Determinists routinely and they typically say that the appearance of options is an illusion, thus the actual outcome is the only possible outcome thus it is not an "option", it was predetermined.

But how could that be true? There are two things when we are dealing with options, the subjective experience of options and the interruption in our activity where the latter is due to the fact that the brain is in an undecided state. First, these two things cannot coincide by chance. Second, if one of the options is predetermined then why does the person who is dealing with options pause at all?

[Agent Smyth]

The argument for determinism isn't that complicated - from a scientific standpoint, the future is a function of the present, just as the present is of the past.

Ironically, the quantum world torpedoes the deterministic ship but alas, for those hopeful, everybody went down with her. Too bad. Sad? I can't say!

[Bahman]

In a deterministic world, that "pause" is simply a chain reaction of signals smashing against each other in accordance with physics. The signals in your brain are on their own trajectories, the same as if you threw a rubber ball in an empty room. It bounces around, but ultimately lands in accordance with its trajectory. Throw another ball, you haven't increased the choices of the first ball, you've just caused a chance for interference with it. Theoretically, that is what happens in your brain, only with trillions of molecules flying around.

But signals do not smash against each other in the brain. Each neuron still keeps firing. The problem is that the brain is in an undecided state since it is interrupted by the situation. Moreover, one can argue that the person should immediately choose one of the options since there could not be any interruption in a deterministic world. This however does not happen therefore the options are real.

[Carter Blunt]

But signals do not smash against each other in the brain. Each neuron still keeps firing.

I'm not sure what that has to do with being on set trajectories. If you make a decision to leave your hand on a hot stove until it crisps, a chain reaction is gonna happen that forces you to "change your mind". It's all just chemical reactions to whatever inputs you're receiving, and there is no problem unless there is a conflict of signals. Whether they "smash" or redirect is besides the point.

[Carter Blunt]

Moreover, one can argue that the person should immediately choose one of the options since there could not be any interruption in a deterministic world.

Only if the speed of light was infinite, which is not the case.

[Bahman]

There is no deterministic world because there is no world of natural objects. Nature does not draw outlines. Objects are defined by their boundaries and nature does not draw boundaries or outlines.

That (the world is not deterministic) does not follow even if nature does now draw outlines because objects keep interacting with each other. Science is a precise discipline but it is not exact so one cannot say for sure whether the world is deterministic or not. Moreover, what other option do you have if the world is not deterministic? Regardless, here we assume that the world is deterministic for sake of discussion.

[Bahman]

Moreover, one can argue that the person should immediately choose one of the options since there could not be any interruption in a deterministic world.

Only if the speed of light was infinite, which is not the case.

By immediate, I do not mean with the speed of infinity. I mean without any pause.

[Bahman]

"How could there be options in a deterministic world?".

At one extreme, a world in which there is no change is a static world, in which time effectively becomes meaningless.
At the other extreme, a world in which there is nothing but change is uncontrolled, unconstrained, unstructured, unordered — a random and chaotic world.

Our reality is like this in other words everything is in motion but apparently is not random and chaotic.

Of course, the possibilities that lie well within these extremes seem more likely to us, although even that seeming may be wishful thinking on our behalf.

In this context (above), I see determinism as a 'next-best' — "best"? — approach to a static world, a world where wishful thinking gives rise to a comfortable and reassuring dream, where there is consistency, order, and certainty. My view is that determinism is hiding from the truth of reality as we experience it, and live with/in it. It's a desperate attempt to pretend the world is, er, determined and reliable, and contains nothing upsetting like uncertainty.

Here we assume determinism for the sake of discussion. Science tells us that this is true but science is not an exact discipline.

[LuckyR]

To understand the implication of the question we need to understand what determinism is. Determinism is a doctrine that states that the future state of a system is uniquely determined in terms of the current state of the system. This means that there exists only one option, the future state, at any given time. We however without any doubt say that we experience options in our daily life. We pause and think about options and eventually choose one of them. The very existence of the pause means that the brain is also interrupted as well with the situation so one cannot say, as determinists say, that only one of the options is real. So options are real since otherwise, the state of the brain evolves deterministically without any pause one option is chosen and others are disregarded. Now that we established options are real we face the question of "How could there be options in a deterministic world?".

I converse with Determinists routinely and they typically say that the appearance of options is an illusion, thus the actual outcome is the only possible outcome thus it is not an "option", it was predetermined.

But how could that be true? There are two things when we are dealing with options, the subjective experience of options and the interruption in our activity where the latter is due to the fact that the brain is in an undecided state. First, these two things cannot coincide by chance. Second, if one of the options is predetermined then why does the person who is dealing with options pause at all?

OK, let's make sure we're speaking of the same things. The fact that animals pause and go through the process of decision making does NOT prove that there are legitimate options. It is possible that the process of "decision making" will 100% of the time lead to a pre determined outcome, given the pre conditions. Of course there is absolutely no subjective or objective experience consistent with this scenario, but it is technically possible.