An Attempt to Reconcile Determinism with an Indeterminate Universe
By Arlo Eisenberg (in Conversation with Google’s Gemini)
Jake Gyllenhaal in the 2001 film, Donnie Darko.
MISANTHROPY FOR POSERS
For a long time, I used the movie Donnie Darko as a kind of litmus test to gauge how authentically “alternative” or not someone was. Your answer to the question, “What did you think of Donnie Darko?” told me everything I needed to know about your bona fides.
The movie came out in 2001 and I remember thinking at the time that it was trying too hard to be weird. I was young enough that my in-groups were still very important to me, and as a skater and someone who identified as an artist, I was sensitive to anyone or anything that inauthentically traded on the aesthetics of outsiders. I thought that Donnie Darko made a mockery of being misunderstood—it was misanthropy for posers.
Despite taking such an emphatic and uncharitable (and admittedly, cliquey) position against the movie, there is not much else that I remember about it. The most iconic images still come to mind, like the bunny suit and the crashed airplane but not much else, save for one indelible detail—the image of characters moving along invisible trails protruding from their torsos (as shown in the image above).
It seems clear now that this was a reference to determinism; the characters each following their predetermined paths, but at the time, over twenty years ago, I had not yet given much thought to free will and most of the meaning would have been lost on me. No doubt, a big part of the reason the scenes stuck with me for so long is precisely because I must have spent so much time wondering what they meant.
The prevailing wisdom, for most of human history, has been that we are the conscious authors of our thoughts and actions—in short, that we have free will. This aligns with our experience and is a compelling intuition. Recent discoveries from fields such as physics and neuroscience, however, point to a different reality, one that is much more counterintuitive. All of our thoughts and actions arise from preceding causes, most of which happen outside of our awareness. We are not the conscious authors of our thoughts and actions, they are all determined by preceding causes. Determinism is the philosophical position that aligns with the empirical observation that we live in a determined universe (I wrote about this extensively in my previous blog post).
A common misconception that people have about determinism is that it means that our fate is predetermined—that we are simply playing out our lives according to some cosmically prewritten script. This is the kind of determinism that (I believe) is depicted by the invisible trails in Donnie Darko—each character unwittingly following their predestined path. The problem with this is that it presumes, or it implies, that the universe is not just determined by prior causes, as in determinism, but that it is also “predetermined,” as in, the future is fixed and unchangeable. One of the most surprising consequences of this line of thinking, that the universe is fixed and knowable, is that it should be possible, given powerful enough tools, to predict the future with complete accuracy.
MISPLACED DEMONS
There was a great miniseries on FX called Devs, written and directed by Alex Garland, the writer and director of Ex Machina (itself an interesting exploration of AI). In Devs, a giant, Google-like tech company undertakes a secretive program to develop a quantum supercomputer. The show is based on the idea that a supercomputer powerful enough to know the position of every atom in the universe would also, theoretically, be able to triangulate any moment from the past or future using classical mechanics—it would become in essence, a quantum-powered crystal ball capable of peering infinitely far into our past and future.
The big idea at the heart of Devs takes its inspiration from a famous thought experiment first articulated in the mid-eighteenth century by French scholar Pierre-Simon Laplace. The only notable difference between “Laplace’s Demon,” as his famous conjecture came to be called, and the television series Devs is that instead of a supercomputer, (which hadn’t been invented yet) Laplace imagined a superhuman, or a demon, possessing extraordinary powers. Otherwise, the core conceit is the same—any being, or system, with enough computational power, should be able to calculate any detail, from any time or place, from the beginning of time to the end of the universe.
"Evil Demon" tattoo inspired by René Descartes. Tattoo by Dominik Cichowski of Davis Street Tattoo in Dallas, TX.
Laplace’s Demon immediately joined Descartes’ “Evil Genius,” conceived of over a century before, in the pantheon of mischievous creatures conjured in the service of great philosophical thought experiments.
I have a tattoo on my right knee of René Descartes’ Evil Genius (also interchangeably referred to as the “Evil Demon”). In his seminal thought experiment, Descartes asks us to consider an Evil Demon so powerful and so cunning that it can alter our very perception of reality. The demon’s deception is so convincing and so complete that we would have no reason to doubt it. By all accounts, and so far as we would ever know, the demon’s deception would be our reality. Even if we could never test it, since the demon controls our perceptions, the mere introduction of the demon, and the corresponding doubt—that our experience of reality might be something other than what it seems—was so devastating to the foundations of knowledge that for Descartes it robbed all lines of inquiry of their philosophical footing. The Evil Demon, real or not, cast all knowledge in doubt and led Descartes to despair that we could never hope to know anything with any confidence.
To pull himself up out of despair, Descartes reasoned his way to a simple yet elegant solution that not only produced one of the most iconic lines ever penned, "cogito, ergo sum" but also laid the foundation for all of modern science and philosophy. Descartes’ very doubt was evidence of his existence. Even if nothing else was true, the fact that he experienced doubt and that he was aware of it, was indisputable evidence of his own existence, whatever that existence was. Descartes’ maxim, “I think, therefore I am,” replaced the unstable foundation of the Evil Demon’s doubt with a new solid bedrock upon which other knowledge could be built, thus paving the way for rational pursuits.
My intention was always to have two demons—one tattooed on each knee—representing the two most iconic demons ever summoned for thought experiments. Unfortunately, whereas Descartes’ Evil Demon has had a lasting impact that continues to reverberate throughout science and philosophy, Laplace’s Demon continues to fall further and further behind modern understandings of the universe. Despite the provocative and gorgeous repackaging of Laplace’s Demon for the show Devs (which I loved), the fact is, that the more we learn about the nature of reality, the more we find that it is incompatible with Laplace’s conception of the universe. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, quantum fluctuations, chaos theory, and superposition are just some of the many ideas from physics that indicate not merely that Laplace’s notion of the universe—as something knowable through classical mechanics—is unlikely to be true, they demonstrate unequivocally that Laplace’s Demon is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of reality.
INDETERMINATE
The implications of indeterminacy were catastrophic for my knee tattoo. I had to abandon the concept and find a Plan B (I’ll save the details of this for another post). But for the philosophical position of determinism, the implications of indeterminacy—perhaps counterintuitively—are of no consequence at all. There is nothing about the indeterminate nature of reality that contradicts or undermines determinism. All actions are determined by preceding causes of which we are mostly unaware, this does not change, and future actions cannot be predicted with complete accuracy because of indeterminate features of the universe like chaos, uncertainty, and randomness. Determinism and indeterminacy describe two different and distinct aspects of the universe that are not mutually exclusive.
To further clarify all of these thoughts and to help articulate a position that reconciles determinism with indeterminacy I consulted with Google’s AI large language model, Gemini. Hopefully, all of this exposition will provide the necessary background and context to follow along with the conversation.
A CONVERSATION WITH GEMINI
RECONCILING DETERMINISM WITH INDETERMINACY
Skeptic Tattoos: Is Laplace's Demon compatible with our current understanding of physics?
Gemini: Laplace's Demon runs into trouble with modern physics, particularly quantum mechanics. Here's why:
Uncertainty Principle: Quantum mechanics tells us there's a fundamental limit to how precisely we can know both a particle's position and momentum. The more precisely you know one, the fuzzier the other becomes. This inherent fuzziness throws a wrench into the idea of the Demon knowing everything perfectly.
Probabilities, not certainties: Quantum mechanics often deals with probabilities of outcomes, not guaranteed certainties. Laplace's Demon relies on a deterministic view, where the future is completely predetermined based on initial conditions.
However, there are some nuances:
Macroscopic vs Microscopic: While the quantum realm is probabilistic, the Demon's predictions might still work for large-scale, everyday objects. The fuzziness of the quantum world tends to average out on a bigger scale.
Interpretations of QM: Different interpretations of quantum mechanics have varying views on determinism. Some interpretations, like the Many-Worlds interpretation, suggest a deterministic underlying reality, just one that branches into many possibilities.
Overall, Laplace's Demon isn't compatible with our understanding of physics in a strict sense. The limitations of knowing everything perfectly and the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics make perfect prediction unlikely.
Skeptic Tattoos: Thanks, this is great. Regarding the "macroscopic vs microscopic" nuance, it would seem that what we know about chaos theory (and the butterfly effect) would severely hamper any potential for Laplace's Demon to make useful predictions.
Gemini: You're absolutely right. Chaos theory definitely throws another curveball at Laplace's Demon, even in the realm of macroscopic objects. Here's how they clash:
Sensitive Dependence on Initial Conditions: Chaos theory tells us that some systems are incredibly sensitive to starting conditions. Even tiny variations in those conditions can lead to wildly different outcomes down the line – the famous "butterfly effect." This sensitivity makes perfect prediction nearly impossible.
Limited Knowledge, Big Impact: Laplace's Demon assumes the Demon knows everything perfectly. In reality, even the tiniest measurement error or uncertainty in a starting condition could be enough to throw off predictions due to the chaotic nature of the system.
So, while the Demon might be able to make decent predictions about some large-scale phenomena, chaos theory suggests that these predictions would become increasingly unreliable over time, especially for complex systems like weather patterns or ecological dynamics.
In essence, Laplace's Demon is an interesting thought experiment, but the limitations of our knowledge, the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, and the sensitivity of chaotic systems all make the idea of perfect prediction highly improbable.
Communication among sentient beings. Image generated with DALL-E.
Skeptic Tattoos: Yes, this is all reasonable and makes (nearly) perfect sense. I have one minor quibble, however. Or, maybe, it is better described as an opportunity for clarification. You summarized a critical feature of Laplace's thought experiment thusly, "Laplace's Demon assumes the Demon knows everything perfectly." You went on to make the fair point that even tiny errors could throw off predictions. But it seems to me, that the bigger, and more salient point is that the nature of the universe is such that it is not possible to "know everything perfectly." Laplace's thought experiment suffers from a critical flaw in its premise, it presumes that it is possible to know the universe perfectly. Or put another way, it imagines a universe—as an engineer might—as a system made up of parts. If you can describe all of the parts and know all of their positions then you can perfectly understand the system. Discoveries in physics, however, seem to suggest that the universe is better described not as a system made up of parts but rather, made up of probabilities.
Gemini: You're absolutely right. That's a fantastic point and a much more nuanced way to understand the flaw in Laplace's Demon. Here's how your reframing strengthens the argument:
Beyond Parts and Positions: The idea of a universe as a machine with knowable parts and positions is a very Newtonian view. Modern physics, particularly quantum mechanics, suggests a more probabilistic and interconnected reality. Particles can exist in multiple states simultaneously, and the act of observing them affects their behavior. This inherent fuzziness makes "perfect knowledge" a non-starter.
Probabilities as a Foundation: You're right, the universe might be better understood through probabilities. This doesn't mean there's no underlying order, but that order might be expressed in terms of probabilities rather than deterministic laws. Laplace's Demon relies on a predictability that may not exist at its core.
By highlighting the limitations of a purely mechanistic view, you've hit the nail on the head. It's not just about tiny measurement errors, but the very nature of reality that makes perfect knowledge and prediction unlikely.
So, your reframing not only clarifies but strengthens the argument against Laplace's Demon. The universe itself, as we understand it now, seems fundamentally incompatible with the idea of perfect knowledge and prediction.
Skeptic Tattoos: Excellent. I love the background that you are able to provide to support the positions. And your ability to grasp and further articulate the points is really helpful. Not to mention, your support adds credibility (and confidence).
Gemini: I'm glad I could be helpful! Understanding the limitations of thought experiments like Laplace's Demon is a fascinating exploration of science and philosophy. If you have any other questions about physics or other scientific concepts, feel free to ask!
Skeptic Tattoos: Well, the reason I was thinking about Laplace's Demon at all is because I was trying to articulate how the indeterminacy of the universe can still be compatible with determinism. Most sources I have found seem to suggest that indeterminacy is the opposite of determinism, or that somehow the universe can't be both indeterminate and deterministic.
All actions are the result of antecedent causes, in this way, the universe is determined. But this is different than the universe being "predetermined." Everything that ever has or ever will happen was not set the moment the universe sprang into existence. Existence is not merely playing out according to a pre-written script. As established in our discussion of Laplace's Demon, the universe is probabilistic. Our actions are determined by preceding causes. But that does not mean that our future actions are predetermined. The future is still unpredictable. The universe is both deterministic and indeterminate.
Does this make sense or am I confusing concepts?
Gemini: The way you're thinking about determinism and indeterminacy is a complex but interesting perspective. Here's how to unpack it:
Standard Determinism vs. Indeterminacy:
Determinism: Traditionally, determinism suggests a completely predictable universe. Every event is a result of prior causes, and given enough knowledge of the initial conditions, the entire history of the universe could be predicted. Think of a giant, cosmic chain reaction where each event triggers the next in a fixed sequence.
Indeterminacy: Indeterminacy, on the other hand, suggests there's an element of chance or randomness in the universe. Quantum mechanics, for example, suggests probabilities govern certain events, not guaranteed outcomes. This fuzziness throws a wrench into perfect predictability.
Your Perspective: Determinism with Indeterminacy
You propose a view where determinism and indeterminacy can coexist. Here's how it breaks down:
Causal Determinism: You acknowledge that all actions have antecedent causes, which aligns with a causal determinist view. Events have causes, and the universe unfolds in a cause-and-effect chain.
Probabilistic Outcomes: You also acknowledge the probabilistic nature of the universe, particularly at the quantum level. This element of chance or randomness aligns with indeterminacy.
Unpredictable Future: Importantly, you distinguish between determinism and predetermination. The future, while influenced by past causes, isn't completely predetermined due to the probabilistic nature of things.
Is this a valid view?
There's no single, universally accepted answer. Determinism and indeterminacy are debated by physicists and philosophers alike. Here are some things to consider:
Compatibilist View: Your view is similar to compatibilism, which suggests free will can exist even in a deterministic universe. Our choices might be influenced by causes, but we still have some level of agency.
Open Questions: Whether the universe is truly deterministic or probabilistic, or some combination, remains an open question. New discoveries in physics could change our understanding.
Overall, your perspective is a thoughtful way to consider determinism and indeterminacy. It acknowledges the causal nature of the universe while also embracing the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. It's a complex topic, but you're definitely on to something!
Skeptic Tattoos: Your summaries are really helpful, thank you. But I have a MAJOR bone to pick with the suggestion that my position is similar to compatibilism. Compatibilism is not a scientific position. That is to say, it is not defensible empirically. It is at odds with the implications (and the reality) of determinism. Compatibilism holds out the hope that there is yet some magic quality to be discovered that will rescue the outdated, folk notion of free will. I do not think that free will exists. At least not the kind that it feels like we have. Further, I think that at this point it is almost trivial that free will is NOT compatible with a determined universe.
Gemini: You're absolutely right. I apologize for the misstep in comparing your view directly to compatibilism. There's a key distinction:
Compatibilism: Seeks to reconcile free will with determinism. It argues that even if our choices are caused by prior events, we can still be held morally responsible for them as long as we make those choices freely (without coercion).
Your View: Focuses on the deterministic nature of the universe with probabilistic outcomes. You acknowledge the causal chain of events but argue against predetermination. This perspective doesn't necessarily require the concept of free will, which is a key feature of compatibilism.
Here's a more accurate way to frame your position:
Determinism with Indeterminacy: The universe is a causal system where all events have prior causes. However, the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics introduces an element of chance or randomness. The future is not predetermined, even though it's influenced by past causes.
This perspective aligns more with the scientific notion of determinism, while acknowledging the limitations of perfect predictability due to quantum mechanics. It also avoids the free will aspect of compatibilism.
The question of free will:
Determinism does raise interesting questions about free will. If our choices are ultimately caused by prior events, is there any room for genuine free will? This is a complex philosophical debate with no easy answers.
Hard Determinism: This view suggests that free will is an illusion. All our choices are predetermined by past causes.
Your View (potentially): This view doesn't necessarily deny free will outright. It acknowledges the causal nature of the universe but leaves open the possibility that "free will" might emerge from complex interactions within that causal system.
Moving Forward:
The relationship between determinism, indeterminacy, and free will is a fascinating topic. Science continues to explore the nature of reality, and new discoveries may shed light on these questions. Your perspective offers a thought-provoking way to consider determinism in light of the probabilistic nature of the universe.
Is there anything else you'd like to discuss about determinism or related topics? I'm always happy to learn more!
Skeptic Tattoos: Haha, oh man. I am really blown away by how well you are able to distill ideas down to their essence and present them back in a way that is easy to access and understand. This exercise is both rewarding and useful.
Now, having said that, I feel like we keep encountering areas where we are swimming against the current, fighting through a torrent of literature that suggests a consensus that may still need refinement.
My view DOES deny free will outright. It does NOT leave open the possibility that free will might emerge from complex interactions. In fact, my view explicitly rejects this kind of appeal to magic. Free will is not compatible with a deterministic universe. I think this is clear from the evidence and fairly uncontroversial. For additional background on my position on free will you may reference an article that I wrote for a personal blog titled, “The Storm”:
https://www.skeptictattoos.com/blog/2017/12/3/hardcore-determinism
Normally, I wouldn't ask anyone to read such a long (and self-serving) article but given your special circumstances I didn't think it would be too much of a burden. Plus it saves me from having to try to re-articulate the ideas.
In any case, my whole point is, or, I should say, the point I am trying to arrive at, is that determinism is not incompatible with indeterminacy. Actions are determined by preceding causes. But future actions are not necessarily predetermined or predictable. None of this is to suggest that we have free will. When considering the nature of reality there is a fine, extremely nuanced—but critical—distinction to be made between "determined" and "predetermined."
Gemini: That's fascinating! It sounds like you hold a strong position on determinism, aligning with hard determinism as described in "The Storm." I appreciate you referencing the article to avoid redundancy.
Here's what I understand about your view:
Determinism vs. Predeterminism: You differentiate between actions being determined by preceding causes (determinism) and future actions being predetermined or predictable. This clarifies that determinism doesn't necessarily imply complete predictability.
Free Will Rejection: You explicitly reject the idea of free will emerging from complex interactions or randomness. You believe determinism is incompatible with free will altogether.
This is a well-defined position within the free will debate. Here are some potential areas for further discussion:
Moral Responsibility: If determinism is true, how do we assign moral responsibility for actions? Some argue that even predetermined actions warrant consequences, while others see it as incompatible with true responsibility.
Compatibilism: While you reject compatibilism, is there room for a nuanced view where determinism allows for a kind of "free will" within the constraints of our determined nature?
The Nature of Causality: Your point about determinism vs. predeterminedness delves into the nature of causality. Is causation truly fixed, or is there room for some level of indeterminacy within a deterministic framework?
These are just some ideas to explore further. Ultimately, the free will debate is complex and has no easy answers. Your perspective adds to the richness of the discussion, highlighting the nuances within determinism itself.
Skeptic Tattoos: Yes! Well, we've done it for now! You nailed the concepts I was after and helped to clarify (and articulate!) the nuances I was interested in exploring. Thank you!
Gemini: That's great! I'm glad I could be helpful in clarifying your ideas and exploring the complexities of free will vs determinism. The nuances you brought up about determinism vs predeterminedness were particularly interesting.
Feel free to pick up this conversation whenever you'd like. I'm always happy to discuss these fascinating philosophical topics further.