Q&A: The Argument Against Determinism
The Argument Against Determinism
Question
Hello Rabbi,
In the book The Science of Freedom you wrote that determinism saws off the branch it is sitting on: if our cognition too is governed by deterministic causality, then there is no necessity that it reflects the truth, and therefore this very conclusion itself is also not necessarily true.
And I did not understand: even according to libertarianism, what is the basis for saying that the conclusions of reason reflect actual reality? Rather, intellectual discussion deals with what lies within the bounds of reason, not with what is beyond it. So regarding determinism as well, it does not matter what the “correct” reality is; in a discussion conducted by means of reason, the only relevant thing is what reason compels, and insofar as reason arrives at the deterministic position there should be no problem with that. (I should emphasize that despite the somewhat decisive tone of the last lines, I am writing them only as a question.)
I would be glad to hear the Rabbi’s response.
Thank you
Answer
The concept of judgment includes reflection within it. The claim is that our thought is not a computer, which is a closed system; rather, it has the ability to consider whether it itself is correct (a person can understand that he himself was or is mistaken. A computer cannot). You can of course doubt the existence of that ability, but that is the libertarian assumption. For the determinist, this is not merely an assumption; rather, there is no other possibility.
Discussion on Answer
Why can’t a deterministic system recognize that it is mistaken? In principle, it is possible to create a completely deterministic computer program that can identify its own errors by means of various kinds of feedback, such as comparison to data from other sources, etc.
First, such a system does not discover that it is mistaken. It simply performs another calculation. A computer discovers nothing, and it is neither mistaken nor correct. It simply computes. The person who looks at it understands whether it is mistaken or correct, and understands that it is now discovering or correcting errors. Beyond that, the error-detection system was put into it by the person using it. The computer does not discover errors. And finally, the error-detection system itself is part of the computer. The question is whether it can discover that all of this is mistaken (for example, that there is an error in the error-detection system).
The questioner was unable to post his response, so here it is:
I didn’t fully understand the Rabbi’s answer. Does the Rabbi mean that reason’s ability to consider whether it itself is correct (in the libertarian picture) guarantees that it really is correct?
This is an opportunity to thank you for the wonderful book (The Science of Freedom), which I have been deeply engrossed in for several days.
My response:
It does not guarantee that I am right, but it makes it possible. Assuming there is reflection, it is possible to place trust in the system. Within a deterministic framework, there is no such logical possibility.