1 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
View submission: The difference between causality and determinism
Determinism is a consequence of locality. This is a major conclusion that Einstein and others arrive at. It's a deep requirement of relativity. Part of this is that we cannot agree on the simultaneity of events, so this puts a deep critique on the concept of "now" as a discrete and universal concept. For every "free choice" you're going to make, that action is already part of someone else's past in some other reference frame. A-series (which free will requires) is incompatible with the fact that the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames. This is a major issue for free will believers.
I'm more on the side of block cosmology... eternalism. The whole universe being a 4D block of spacetime that is "there" both in past an present and future. It sounds like it's more in line with his B-series of time stuff. I think I've heard it called that. Again the language on this is all wonkey. McTaggart and others seem to claim that block cosmology (a 4D block of spacetime) means that the past-present-future are fixed.. static.. not flowing as we normally experience it.
But static and flowing are "time words." There IS variability in the time dimension of the block just like if you move in a spatial dimension there is variability in space. "Flow" and "dynamic" are like the word "hilly" or "jagged" when describing a landscape in space. "Then" and "now" for time coordinates are like "there" and "here" in space coordinates. The idea that the future is "fixed" is nonsense in a B-series interpretation and I think that this is a hole in McTaggart's take.
It's also an inconsistency in LFW interpretations of determinism. It's the core reason that people fall into fatalism. They think that the future is "fixed" independent of what they do. But that's not what relativistic eternalism says. The future is "there" (actually "then") but the word "unchanging" or "fixed" has no application here. "Fixed" is a word used to describe a temporal trajectory. If a plate stays for some period on a table top, it is "fixed" there in time. The notion that I wave a plate around in the air and place it on a table is a description of something dynamic and changing. The fact that at a certain time coordinate in block spacetime, a plate is at a given coordinate is not "fixed." To get that, you have to invoke a fifth temporal dimension in which the time coordinate could change. There's no evidence for that.
Locality demands determinism. Locality is a requirement of relativity. Here's Maudlin[1] on Bell on this point from his understanding of EPR. B-series is more consistent with block cosmology that seems to be demanded by locality. It just makes libertarian free will a non-starter.
1: https://youtu.be/mRT5zXAwvBs?t=8622
And it's totally consistent with our experience. Take the 4D block and ask what the person is experiencing in a slice of time. They experience memories of the past up to that point and not of the future. Every slice of the block feels like now. That's why it always feels like now.
Comment by diogenesthehopeful at 20/08/2024 at 23:59 UTC
0 upvotes, 2 direct replies
Determinism is a consequence of locality.
I'd say determinism is a consequence of the enlightenment. With the compelling story for "God is watching you" taking the hit due to enlightenment, something had to take its place for controlling the masses. It used to be the divine right of kings. Now it is determinism stops the masses of having any ambition.
However I will agree that locality and temporal time are necessary in order for determinism being true. I don't think determinism had to necessarily be true if locality is true. I believe locality could be true and determinism could still be false.
A-series (which free will requires) is incompatible with the fact that the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames.
I would say free will requires volition. It requires self control and you seem to be having some difficulty accepting the existence of the self so with that being assumed, what is happening with the A series is moot.
Maudlin holds out that determinism and causality are equal because he quotes Bell's paper and implies Bell meant determinism when he wrote causality. I'm pretty certain this is the video when he does this near the beginning. I know what you are saying and the light cone is specific when calling it cause. However it is not cause because the cause is disconnected when causation and determinism are conflated. In other words, the cause cannot exist across spacelike separation when causality is restricted the way determinism insists that it is disconnencted. The fact that we can demonstrate cause across a spacelike interval implies local realism is untenable.