Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Identical situations create identical outcomes?

Rate this topic


Kjetil

Recommended Posts

I don't think so, if man has free will. Creativity is a very peculiar concept.. I think of it as a mix between free will and the "content" of your brain. You need to use a certain willpower to stay in a creative mood and finish a creative work, but the ideas will come to your conscious mind in "the only way they can". As Rand said, the only fundamental choice is to think or not to think. I don't know if my explanation made sense, and I might also be completely wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Identity requires only that the outcomes be consistent with the situations, i.e. that each outcome somehow is not contradictory with it.

 

Identity does not require or imply mechanistic determinism, but it would if you impose identical outcomes.

 

Although many here like to bash QM, some physical theories predict, (and experiment has shown) that "identical" situations lead to different outcomes, although the outcomes are specific and occur at predictable probabilities, nonetheless the number of outcomes can be greater than one for a single "identical" situation.

 

E.G. A meson will decay into specific other particles.  The time when that occurs is probabilistic, not deterministic.  The theory (and what experiment seems to show) is that in exact same universes with the exact same meson, multiple outcomes (different times when the decay happens) are possible.. this does not contravene identity as the Meson can never for example suddenly become a single proton (mass would not be conserved) which never decays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it follow from the identity axiom that identical situations create identical outcomes? If so, how do we explain creativity?

To your first question, yes, if you mean exactly identical. But creativity is a lot to do with inability to predict what we'd create or discover, and conscious involvement when creating. Creation or failure to create is how you employ concepts or manipulate them, which is involved as you can get. That isn't to say you'd create anything other than what you have in fact created. If you made a painting, and somehow reversed time to make the painting again, keeping in mind your knowledge and experiences are identical, you'd end up painting it the same way - same colors, brushstrokes, etc. The thing is, it's not possible to predict what you'd create, so it's really not a problem. It's going to be a creation that you -uniquely- painted and dependent on -your- own concepts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it follow from the identity axiom that identical situations create identical outcomes? If so, how do we explain creativity?

 

To your first question, no. You can probably tell that Eiuol and I disagree on this subject  :thumbsup:  To answer yes to the above question is to imply determinism- or that your situation determines your choice. If the answer is yes, then in a given situation you must, by your metaphysical nature, act in one way. Just as a rock must fall to the ground when dropped. 

 

I think it's important to first really understand what the law of identity is and where it comes from before you can understand what it implies. Identity exists because to be is to be something. To exist is to have a specific nature. The law of identity does not proscribe what that nature is.

 

"A thing is—what it is; its characteristics constitute its identity. An existent apart from its characteristics, would be an existent apart from its identity, which means: a nothing, a non-existent." -Ayn Rand

 

"The concept “identity” does not indicate the particular natures of the existents it subsumes; it merely underscores the primary fact that they are what they are." -Ayn Rand

 

I think those quotes above do a thorough enough job of explaining it. With that understanding of the law, there  is nothing to prohibit man from having the characteristic of free will- being able to choose amongst two different options (thinking or not thinking). In the end, his choice is part of his nature. That he must choose is necessitated by his identity, but how he chooses is not. With an ability to choose, man can choose to think independently and creatively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's important to first really understand what the law of identity is and where it comes from before you can understand what it implies. Identity exists because to be is to be something. To exist is to have a specific nature. The law of identity does not proscribe what that nature is.

I swear that a while back Boydstun posted one of his essays on this specifically, saying that Rand's sense of causality is that an entity will act in one way, that only one consequence will happen. I don't remember where I saw it, or if it was Boydstun's even. So I like to use the "relive the event" thought experiment to show that there is no reason to suspect you'll do something different, and to show that it can't be predicted. If I would do something wholly different other than what I chose to do, I'm not really even in control of what I plan to do based on reasons. Anything I do when making a painting is for some reason. If my reason to use red was to express anger in a painting and I find magenta or pink just won't do, why would I do anything else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Identity does not imply mechanistic determinism.

 

Causality itself has identity, philosophically speaking it could either be multivalued (and consistent with the actor's and action's identities) or single valued (and consistent with the actor's and action's identities), but only experiment would be able to verify which kind of causation is at play in the universe.

 

Experiment has shown that entities in some context follow multivalued causation while others follow single valued causation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Experiment has shown that entities in some context follow multivalued causation while others follow single valued causation.

 

How exactly does one prove whether another outcome was or was not possible?  I would like to see that experiment!  (!!!)

 

Does it follow from the identity axiom that identical situations create identical outcomes?

Yes.

There is no such thing as a "contingent [or accidental] truth"; whatever is true, had to be true (and whatever is false could not have been true).  This applies equally to all facts, regardless of whether they refer to the past, present or future; there is no metaphysical difference.  So when we say that "the sun will rise tomorrow morning" we are not engaging in cognitive masturbation, as Hume suggested; that statement has some specific truth-value which we are capable of actually, Objectively knowing.

 

If so, how do we explain creativity?

Determinism does not contradict unpredictability (in an epistemological sense).

 

The weather patterns in Earth's atmosphere are a deterministic system, which acts according to a few simple rules (and can be described in terms of a handful of them)- and yet it proves incomprehensibly difficult for us to predict.  This is because the air currents which drive it are dictated by the heat absorption, the terrain, the water (the content of that water) of so many different places that we really never know which situation we're in, which precludes us from predicting what will come next.

 

This type of system has been described as "chaotic"; one whose behavior is deterministic, but influenced by too many variables to accurately predict.

 

Now, when you read that last sentence, your subconscious mind recognized 23 different sequences of letters to represent 23 different concepts, retrieved each one from memory, put them all together properly and then inferred another meaning entirely from their combination- without your participation.

 

If you were living in a deterministic causality, do you think you could predict yourself?

 

If not then why worry about whether you're fated to follow a single course of action, if you will never be able to see it until it happens?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it follow from the identity axiom that identical situations create identical outcomes?

Almost, but not quite: another consequence of the law of identity is that two situations cannot be identical (A is A: different things are different things, different situations are different situations, etc. ). 

Just think about it: let's say you have two (theoretical) apples that are the same in every way. You place them on a table, next to each other. Is the two apples' situation identical? No, it isn't: one of the apples is on the left side, the other on the right side, they're not occupying the same space. (Incidentally, that in turn results in other differences as well: for instance, the gravitational pull of various other objects in the Universe would act slightly more strongly on one than the other. But that's of course irrelevant, the mere fact that the two apples occupy a different space is enough to make them non-identical).

There is no such thing as "identical situations". If "they" were identical, then "they" would be the same: "they" would occupy the same space and time, and it would not make any sense to refer to "them", plural. "they" would just be one "it".

 

I don't think so, if man has free will.

OP's question was, is this statement correct: (A = B )=> [(A => C ) => (B => C )].

Man's free will has no bearing on whether that is true or false.

However, the law of identity (the version on wikipedia) goes like this: “each thing is the same with itself and different from another”, meaning that (A = B ) doesn't mean we're talking about two things that are identical, it means we're using two symbols that refer to the same ONE thing. 

 

So, if the question is written the way I wrote it above, then the answer is yes, the statement is correct. However, if instead you take (A = B ) to mean A and B are two separate things that are identical, then A cannot be said to be identical to B, that goes against the law of identity.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How exactly does one prove whether another outcome was or was not possible?  I would like to see that experiment!  (!!!)

 

 

Setting your standard to "proof" I submit borders on the rationalistic.... experiment provides opportunity for reality to reveal itself, and for us to understand it.  But no matter... I will "reposte"

 

 

Pray tell HD, how could you "prove" that given the same situation every outcome must be exactly the same?

 

Please describe that experiment to me.

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man's free will has no bearing on whether that is true or false.

 

 

If Man does have free will then the statement must be false.

 

Situation taken broadly means the particular configuration, state, situation of all of reality, all of nature.

 

MAN, including his mind, and his consciousness, and his will, are NOT supernatural.  As such a man as he is prior to his decision IS part of the nature of the situation.

 

HD is a determinist, so of course he would say identical situations MUST cause, proceed, to identical outcomes.  You, if you believe in

1. Free will

2. Man, his consciousness and his will NOT being SUPERNATURAL

cannot conclude that identical situations must lead to identical outcomes, otherwise man's does not have free will.

 

Whatever you call a thing that causes decisions, choices, actions... but which must be identical for identical situations, THAT would not be free will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MAN, including his mind, and his consciousness, and his will, are NOT supernatural.  As such a man as he is prior to his decision IS part of the nature of the situation.

If a situation could be EXACTLY IDENTICAL to another, how is it that you would choose to act differently, unless it were random? Repeating that the mind is not supernatural doesn't help you, it still doesn't make sense why identical situations would also be different at the same time... It's a contradiction. That's what Nicky pointed out, basically. I only add a thought experiment to approach it differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pray tell HD, how could you "prove" that given the same situation every outcome must be exactly the same?

Can't do it.  For any experiment I could ever conceive of, you can always say that repeating it might give different results.  And no amount of repetitions, under any conditions whatsoever, could ever disprove that.  By exactly the same token, no matter how many times you repeat an experiment under seemingly-identical circumstances to produce different results, I can always suggest some unidentified difference (some hidden variable); you can never disprove it without being omniscient.

 

This question cannot be answered empirically.

 

Whatever you call a thing that causes decisions, choices, actions... but which must be identical for identical situations, THAT would not be free will.

 

Are your reasons for your decisions not part of the situations in which you choose?

Of all the defenses of Libertarian free will that I've seen, yours exclusively seems internally consistent.  However, it reduces every choice of every person throughout history to a metaphysical accident; disconnected from every other thing in the entire cosmos; something literally arbitrary.  I cannot reconcile what I know of my own choices with that and I do not believe that it applies to you, either.

 

And if my choices were metaphysically arbitrary- if what I think of as "me" was nothing more than what happened to result from X, Y and Z random events- then what the Hell would be the point of studying philosophy?

 

Edit:

 

I study philosophy because I believe that it allows me to make better choices- which would be a causal factor.  If my choices were truly arbitrary then to what end should I study anything at all?

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harrison,

 

Free-will, I would agree, cannot be proven - given its axiomatic status. The best we can do, to my knowledge, is re-affirmation through denial, in conjunction with a deeper examination of the nature of elements that arise in disagreement.

 

I happen to like Eioul's time-travel thought experiment, all though I think all it does is provide one of the best ways to try and conceive of the elements involved with regard to time-travel via a thought experiment.

 

1. You make a decision based on all the relevant factors you can conceive of to take a job overseas.

2. Over the course of the next 10 years, things run awry.

3. Thought experiment: You are transported through time to the moment you make the decision (or are considering all of the relevant factors, presumably minus the 10 years of experience to draw upon,)

4. You make a decision based on all the relevant factors you can conceive of to . . .

 

I think the movie "Edge of Tomorrow: Live, Die, Repeat", captures part of this element in the character of Rita, if you're familiar with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the movie "Edge of Tomorrow: Live, Die, Repeat", captures part of this element in the character of Rita, if you're familiar with it.

I own it.  B)   Although there's a difference between its premise and Eiuol's thought experiment.

When Rita went back in time, she remembered everything she had experienced in the future (which is what allowed her to become such a lethal warrior) while in Eiuol's thought experiment that must also repeat; erasing not only your desire to change the decision in question, but also the knowledge of whatever prompted that desire, in the first place.

 

The best we can do, to my knowledge, is re-affirmation through denial, in conjunction with a deeper examination of the nature of elements that arise in disagreement.

I think I agree, but I'm not quite sure.  What does "reaffirmation through denial" mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Rita's case, her remembering the time travel enabled her to identify that though she had not been at this point in time, she "knew" time travel was possible.

 

Eiuol's case erases that too, thus making it a firmer case for "time-travel" thought experiments.

 

Re-affirmation through denial - say in Identity, is the reliance on Identity to try to deny Identity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Binswanger's essay on determinism, he wrote:

 

"What then must one do to claim that his beliefs constitute knowledge? . . . 

In order to claim that his belief, X, constitutes knowledge, one must have good reason for believing X . . .

. . .

Consider, for example, whether you think someone knew that it would rain tomorrow if you asked him how he knew this and heard him reply:  'my sexual needs led me to that conclusion' or, 'I believe it because I was deprived as a child' or, 'I believe it because of the state of my brain'. . .  "

 

Hence, when a certifiable Marxist claims that your beliefs, ideals, et cetera, are caused by your socioeconomic status, the immediate corollary is that the assertion itself was caused by his socioeconomic status (which renders the whole thing semantically null).  It's a self-invalidating statement.  Some have taken this as evidence that determinism, as such, contradicts the basis of any and all knowledge.

On its face that's a perfectly reasonable induction, but examine his final example a bit closer.

 

"I believe X because I know Y and I know Z"; what's that reducible to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't do it.  For any experiment I could ever conceive of, you can always say that repeating it might give different results.  And no amount of repetitions, under any conditions whatsoever, could ever disprove that.  By exactly the same token, no matter how many times you repeat an experiment under seemingly-identical circumstances to produce different results, I can always suggest some unidentified difference (some hidden variable); you can never disprove it without being omniscient.

 

This question cannot be answered empirically.

 

 

Are your reasons for your decisions not part of the situations in which you choose?

Of all the defenses of Libertarian free will that I've seen, yours exclusively seems internally consistent.  However, it reduces every choice of every person throughout history to a metaphysical accident; disconnected from every other thing in the entire cosmos; something literally arbitrary.  I cannot reconcile what I know of my own choices with that and I do not believe that it applies to you, either.

 

And if my choices were metaphysically arbitrary- if what I think of as "me" was nothing more than what happened to result from X, Y and Z random events- then what the Hell would be the point of studying philosophy?

 

Edit:

 

I study philosophy because I believe that it allows me to make better choices- which would be a causal factor.  If my choices were truly arbitrary then to what end should I study anything at all?

 

HD

 

 

Ok I may agree with you regarding empirical evidence.  But that is my point, how then can you say causation must be single valued in outcome or that causation must be multivalued in outcome?

 

 

Stating that existence of X implies the impossibility of Y is NOT a positive assertion of Y, only that X and Y are incompatible.

 

I have not stated that free will has been proven, or that determinism has been "proven". (Please note I remain agnostic... as to your strongly held belief in "determinism"... I think THAT belief, since empirically we cannot "prove" or disprove it, is an example of "the arbitrary" (see OPAR)) 

 

I have only stated that free will (if you define the freeness of will a certain way, namely "could have chosen otherwise") IS incompatible with determinism, AND that identical situations necessitating identical outcomes is the VERY DEFINITION of determinism.

 

Again, I have not stated that anything proves or disproves free will exists. 

 

There is no "internal inconsistency" with what I have stated in this thread.  If you can find something please specifically point it out to me.

 

SL

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Argh.

 

Why the Argh?

 

How do you define "free will"?  If identical situations must cause identical outcomes, by what definition of free will could you be said to posses it?  Every choice you make could not have been otherwise. All of them are determined, as are all of the actions of every other particle, entity, in the universe for all time. 

 

Do you really believe the universe and everything in it, including us and all of our choices, are purely deterministic? 

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a situation could be EXACTLY IDENTICAL to another, how is it that you would choose to act differently, unless it were random? Repeating that the mind is not supernatural doesn't help you, it still doesn't make sense why identical situations would also be different at the same time... It's a contradiction. That's what Nicky pointed out, basically. I only add a thought experiment to approach it differently.

 

You have defined determinism.  The entire universe and every one of our choices from the very beginning to the end of time.  I suggest you accept what you believe in and call it by its name "determinism". HD is not afraid to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have defined determinism.  The entire universe and every one of our choices from the very beginning to the end of time.  I suggest you accept what you believe in and call it by its name "determinism". HD is not afraid to do so.

"Weak" determinism, I guess. I just call my position "causality". I just don't know how to resolve your contradiction that identical situations could also be different...

 

You are saying context C may lead to choice A.

My set of reasons {R} originate from C. {R} leads to A.

 

You are also also saying context C may lead to choice B.

My set of reasons {S} originate from C. {S} leads to B.

 

Why would your set of reasons differ? Not if there COULD be varying reasons, but why WOULD your reasons vary? Remember, context here is all knowledge you have as well as your environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Weak" determinism, I guess. I just call my position "causality".

To clarify, do you recognize that your position is opposed to the following, from Leonard Peikoff's "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy"?

 

Because man has free will, no human choice—and no phenomenon which is a product of human choice—is metaphysically necessary. In regard to any man-made fact, it is valid to claim that man has chosen thus, but it was not inherent in the nature of existence for him to have done so: he could have chosen otherwise.

If you say that Context C leads to "choice" A, and only to "choice" A (which, as my quotes are meant to demonstrate, is no longer a choice in any meaningful sense), then every human choice is metaphysically necessary. We must then say that it was inherent in the nature of existence for him to have made "choice" A: he could not have chosen otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...