Newcomb's Paradox - the modern version of the determinism vs non-determinism

[Atla]

The Monty Hall thing is in any way about determinism??

Well maybe anything could be behind the curtains if we don't assume determinism.

Indeterminism doesn't mean the past isn't fixed. It just means the future isn't (yet).

When the future isn't fixed anything could be behind the curtains.

[phyllo]

When the future isn't fixed anything could be behind the curtains.

There still has to be continuity. The contents of a box can't just suddenly change to something else.

[Flannel Jesus]

Well maybe anything could be behind the curtains if we don't assume determinism.

Indeterminism doesn't mean the past isn't fixed. It just means the future isn't (yet).

When the future isn't fixed anything could be behind the curtains.

What's behind the curtains, determinism or not, was decided in the past. No relevant treatment of Monty hall that I've ever seen questions in any way whether or not what's behind each one has already been decided and is unchanging.

[Atla]

When the future isn't fixed anything could be behind the curtains.

There still has to be continuity. The contents of a box can't just suddenly change to something else.

Why couldn't they change to something else in indeterminism?

[Atla]

Indeterminism doesn't mean the past isn't fixed. It just means the future isn't (yet).

When the future isn't fixed anything could be behind the curtains.

What's behind the curtains, determinism or not, was decided in the past. No relevant treatment of Monty hall that I've ever seen questions in any way whether or not what's behind each one has already been decided and is unchanging.

What was behind the curtains might have been decided in the past in indeterminism (and I already disagree btw because I don't believe in absolute time), but now anything could be behind the curtains.

[phyllo]

When the future isn't fixed anything could be behind the curtains.

There still has to be continuity. The contents of a box can't just suddenly change to something else.

Why couldn't they change to something else in indeterminism?

That would mean that no physical laws apply. It's essentially chaos.

Even the free-willers don't go that far.

[Atla]

There still has to be continuity. The contents of a box can't just suddenly change to something else.

Why couldn't they change to something else in indeterminism?

That would mean that no physical laws apply. It's essentially chaos.

Even the free-willers don't go that far.

Yes indeterminism is chaos where physical laws don't apply (physical laws are deterministic).

??

[Flannel Jesus]

When the future isn't fixed anything could be behind the curtains.

What's behind the curtains, determinism or not, was decided in the past. No relevant treatment of Monty hall that I've ever seen questions in any way whether or not what's behind each one has already been decided and is unchanging.

What was behind the curtains might have been decided in the past in indeterminism (and I already disagree btw because I don't believe in absolute time), but now anything could be behind the curtains.

Generally indeterminism doesn't mean "no facts are fixed at all", it means certain future states have wiggle room. If the host looks behind each door and sees that the car is behind door number 2, then 5 seconds later, its still behind door number 2 - an indeterminist thinking about this problem isn't thinking there's that kind of indeterminism, where the future has no relationship to the past and anything at all could be true. At least, I don't think they are.

An indeterminist generally thinks about Monty hall the same way a determinist would - the car is behind a door, which door it is behind was decided in the past, its not changing, do I want to switch doors? I don't think determinism or indeterminism makes a difference to how a thinker approaches this particular scenario.

[Atla]

Generally indeterminism doesn't mean "no facts are fixed at all", it means certain future states have wiggle room. If the host looks behind each door and sees that the car is behind door number 2, then 5 seconds later, its still behind door number 2 - an indeterminist thinking about this problem isn't thinking there's that kind of indeterminism, where the future has no relationship to the past and anything at all could be true. At least, I don't think they are.

Why would "certain" future states be determined to have no wiggle room in indeterminism? And what determines the extent of the wiggle room in indeterminism?

An indeterminist generally thinks about Monty hall the same way a determinist would - the car is behind a door, which door it is behind was decided in the past, its not changing, do I want to switch doors? I don't think determinism or indeterminism makes a difference to how a thinker approaches this particular scenario.

Imo there are no actual indeterminists in everyday life, or very few. They just use the word but haven't actually thought about it. For example we learn object permanence in early childhood. We happen to live in a deterministic world where some people claim to be indeterminists.

[Flannel Jesus]

Why would "certain" future states be determined to have no wiggle room in indeterminism? And what determines the extent of the wiggle room in indeterminism?

I'm sure there's a variety of answers to that, from quantum indeterminacy to human agency. They don't generally believe what you seem to think here, that every moment in the future is entirely random and completely unconstrained.

If you get someone saying the quantum answer, then "what determines the extent of the wiggle room" would be the Schrödinger equation, or something like that.

[Atla]

Why would "certain" future states be determined to have no wiggle room in indeterminism? And what determines the extent of the wiggle room in indeterminism?

I'm sure there's a variety of answers to that, from quantum indeterminacy to human agency. They don't generally believe what you seem to think here, that every moment in the future is entirely random and completely unconstrained.

If you get someone saying the quantum answer, then "what determines the extent of the wiggle room" would be the Schrödinger equation, or something like that.

Well in indeterminism there should be no Schrödinger equation either.

Unless by indeterminism you guys mean a mix of determinism and indeterminism.

[Flannel Jesus]

Why would "certain" future states be determined to have no wiggle room in indeterminism? And what determines the extent of the wiggle room in indeterminism?

I'm sure there's a variety of answers to that, from quantum indeterminacy to human agency. They don't generally believe what you seem to think here, that every moment in the future is entirely random and completely unconstrained.

If you get someone saying the quantum answer, then "what determines the extent of the wiggle room" would be the Schrödinger equation, or something like that.

Well in indeterminism there should be no Schrödinger equation either.

Unless by indeterminism you guys mean a mix of determinism and indeterminism.

Yes I think the vision most indeterminists have off the world is a mix. The world clearly isn't entirely random, the future clearly has a relationship to the past, and that relationship is evidently constrained in various ways - any indeterminist with eyes can see that.

[Atla]

I'm sure there's a variety of answers to that, from quantum indeterminacy to human agency. They don't generally believe what you seem to think here, that every moment in the future is entirely random and completely unconstrained.

If you get someone saying the quantum answer, then "what determines the extent of the wiggle room" would be the Schrödinger equation, or something like that.

Well in indeterminism there should be no Schrödinger equation either.

Unless by indeterminism you guys mean a mix of determinism and indeterminism.

Yes I think the vision most indeterminists have off the world is a mix. The world clearly isn't entirely random, the future clearly has a relationship to the past, and that relationship is evidently constrained in various ways - any indeterminist with eyes can see that.

Neat fantasy..

[phyllo]

Yes I think the vision most indeterminists have off the world is a mix. The world clearly isn't entirely random, the future clearly has a relationship to the past, and that relationship is evidently constrained in various ways - any indeterminist with eyes can see that.

The tricky part is getting some indeterminist to explain which parts of life are determined and which are not and why that particular division exists.

[Noax]

Well maybe anything could be behind the curtains if we don't assume determinism.

No. What is behind the curtains was put there by the show staff, and Monty certainly knows since his job depends on knowing. It cannot change from what the staff put there. The contestant doesn't know, but one person not knowing in no way implies that what is behind each curtain isn't what the staff put there. I don't know what crazy ideas you have about indeterminism, but it doesn't change how classical physics works, and all the scenarios (Monty, Newcomb) are straight up classical scenarios.

Why couldn't they change to something else in indeterminism?

That would violate empirical (classical) physics. I can't put an apple in a box, close it, and then find an orange there when I immediately reopen it. Indeterminism (a whole class of views, not just one view) suggests nothing of the kind.
That sort of thing is for parlor tricks, pulling rabbits out of empty hats and such. Our 'Omega' is presumably not doing such cheats.

I didn't see Omega as magical, it just somehow knows what people will choose.

That is also how I see it. It is has enough intelligence to predict well. There's actually three predictions: One box, two, or random, where something not based on prior state is used to make the decision, say a Geiger counter. Nozick addresses this third option. If the Omega predicts that the person will utilize randomness, then it will put nothing in the opaque box.

Omega is magical if you assume it has the ability to make perfect predictions.

Agree. The OP says 'near perfect', so only intelligence needed, not magic. I agree that it cannot ever be perfect, but due to the randomness clause, basing the choice on something other than your state will not be to your advantage.

Indeterminism doesn't mean the past isn't fixed. It just means the future isn't (yet).

Depends on the definition of determinism, and a quick google of definitions gets you all sorts of vague and contradictory definitions that don't really distinguish it from what people here are calling 'indeterminism'. Most of them seem to only distinguish naturalism from supernaturalism, including Oxford. OK, it's identified as a philosophy definition, not a science one.

I will attempt a couple definitions:
X) All events are a unique inevitable result of prior state.
Key word is 'unique'. A particular measurement of spin can only result in say spin up and no other measurement is possible.

Y) There is no fundamental randomness to the nature of physics. No 'god rolling dice' as Einstein put it.
MWI is a nice example of something that meets this definition but not the X one.

Z) The entire history of the universe already exists. There is no future that isn't 'written' so to speak. The history is determined in the same way that a presentist would say that the past is fixed.
This definition doesn't work with what Flannel Jesus just said since the comment presumes the meaningful existence of 'the future'. The other two definitions are compatible with presentism.

Indeterminism seem to need to deny all three definitions. There can be multiple possible results to a measurement not yet performed. There must be fundamental randomness to natural physics.


Notice that philosophical notions of mind and will or anthropocentrism come into play with those definitions.