Determinism, Teleology and Cosmology

 Plainly one may present numerous paradigms for deterministic systems without teleology. There is no necessary relation between a deterministic system and purpose of the system (or is there). Do some believe that a deterministic system must necessarily have a purpose and that from a Creator of the system? It is possible to imagine a computer program as an entirely deterministic system itself that generates deterministic algorithmic programs as sets that have no purpose, obviously.

Given a finite set of construction components there may be a necessity of a determined number of configurations of a system with an initial set. Someone mentioned constructing a square with just three lines. With three lines one may build a triangle in a certain configuration that when viewed seems like it is a square, without being one. With the alphabet one can’t construct hieroglyphs or build an automobile with raspberry jello.

Deterministic systems may certainly exist. The question people with antipathetic positions toward faith might have that they cannot exist is absurd. The effort is to deny that the entire Universe is pre-determined, and that it freely evolves without constraints or limits in it’s course of evolution. It does appear that at least parts of it’s fate is predetermined. Stars have a limited life span of several billion years more or less, the entire initial endowment of mass that is apparently finite will reduce with entropy to either a cold dead condition near absolute zero or be recollected with gravity to a singularity. In either case the temperature might have a phase change to absolute high temperature.

There may be an argument that a predetermined fate of the Universe is not known by humans yet that doesn’t make it so. The fate of the entire Universe is already set; nothing people or other sentient beings living in it can change that.

Of course some might regard the Higgs field entanglement of two-dimensional massless particles given the appearance of three dimensions occurring in space-time as indicative of an unlimited source of Universes and other structures that happen rather like a dream generated by a bubble maker, and those could be regarded as non-determined. Yet of course once they are brought into being they became determined with a set future. The phrase ‘the die is cast’ encapsulates the notion.

Free will may coexist within determinism. Life is a complex phenomenon physically and there is a vast degree of uncertainty regarding physics. It does seem plain that deterministic elements exist and that degrees of freedom exist while the entire Universe phenomenon may itself be determined since its foundation. One doesn’t have answers to the questions about the structure of the Universe or Multiverse that are exhaustive. Christians at least have faith in a Creator.

https://www.udio.com/songs/mTdMFKeB7j9DF8sgdGcdtr

If a program is written to generate whole numbers it is determined to produce while numbers; that is it will not generate the collected works of Shakespeare with annotations, loaves of bread or reasons not to elect Pamela Harris.

It seems wrong to use Norbert Weiner’s work as a strong advocate for necessary nondeterminism. A Google search asking if N.W. supported indeterminism generated this response; “While not definitively stating a belief in or against strict determinism, Norbert Wiener's ideas in cybernetics suggest a view that emphasized predictability within systems, leaning towards a deterministic framework for understanding complex systems like human brains and cultures, rather than strict, unfettered freedom”.

I appreciate the gulf in communication between word and object. The idea that ideas may not be expressed with deterministic exactitude since words are descriptions of observations an dare- approximate descriptions of experience. It is the purpose of words  that concern, and one is venturing into linguistic and analytic philosophical claiming that all knowledge is non-deterministic and physics is non-sense as well. It is a metaphysical inference to extrapolate from human epistemology to the nature and constructions of what humans experience. Utilizing analytic philosophy for the purpose of arguing pro or con determinism is at best a fraction of the right parameters required for inducting some sort of an accurate response to the challenges of the inquiry. Human epistemological uncertainty doesn't mean the Universe itself is nondeterministic. Perhaps one can say that humans may know that they know nothing after jettisoning pragmatism.  ‘What is wisdom to man is foolishness to God.’

Incompleteness theorems don’t equate to non-determinism for the given (Universe for-itself). Humans are elements of pluralism in a monism that IS.

That is the nature of the experience of what is regarded as an entangled field of two-dimensional massless particles that pick up a virtual third dimension in the field. It is the world people exist in though, so that contingent experience is assigned as being real. One need only be poor, freezing or starving, very sick etc to know that one need treat the world as reality.

Philosophy and Deterministic Psychology

A theoria for determinism isn’t contingent on Freudian psychology; a deterministic universe isn’t found with a brain. If the Universe has determinism within its physics, science may posit a criterion, yet that account would be explaining what occurs within a brain. Freud’s work is probably not used much these days. Psychoanalysis is too labor intensive and costly for Americans. Psychiatrists instead prescribe chemicals to dope brain cells.

Pop deterministic psychology is a practical device broadly applied to address interpersonal relations that are dis-functional. Philosophy doesn’t work with drug addiction, substance abuse, spousal abuse, marriage difficulties etc. Psychology is a practical application of the tribal witch doctor role that philosophy never sought.

https://www.udio.com/songs/gaPChaZJnAUUTLADe1qAvg

There are elements of social determinism present externally such as growing up in a slum or barrio that an individual would not have if they grew up in Pacific Palisades. The development of various theories of determinism place the determinist forces at sundry levels. I believe they probably are not too well researched, in that as incorrect syllogisms the form may be valid yet the parameters for the premises may be incomplete or inapplicable.

It is a bizarre peculiar notion that neurons and synapses can be fundamentally deconstructed by someone listening to what one says about what they have to say of what they think. Jung and Freud’s descriptions of psychological landscapes that are common are more relevant in they are taken as descriptions of common reactions to common human experience. For example everyone ages and becomes aware that their life biological structure is slowly disintegrating and their temporal experience will conclude. Some people react to that experience differently than others. That individual experience may appear as a common archetype, yet it isn’t a necessity.

The concept that psychological experiences occur beyond an individual’s control could be considered from several points of view. The simplest is a Cartesian paradigm of why one originates thought, and is one the author of their own thought or are just tricked into believing it is. There are social and economic circumstances beyond the control of an individual. An example is being a conscript in the Ukraine war. Some soldiers were forced to participate and the circumstance is largely beyond their control.

Pop psychology is a practical device broadly applied to address interpersonal relations that are dis-functional. Philosophy doesn’t work with drug addiction, substance abuse, spousal abuse, marriage difficulties etc. Psychology is a practical application of the tribal witch doctor role that philosophy never sought. A lot of people have wrong ideas about society that aren’t ever corrected and civilization clunks along like a bumper car anyway.

Sartre, Determinism, Experience/Existence and Essents

 I wrote this in replying to a point someone made about Sartre's opinion on determinism... I read the works of Sartre I mentioned exhaustively. The Critique is about 1000 pages. I'm kinda done reading Jean Paul.

I appreciate your comment. I would agree that Sartre thought mankind is "condemned to be free". The experience precedes essence idea is a little more questionable in my opinion. That is, I am not sure at all that he was correct. Perhaps there is a dual mode of experience and essence occurring together.

I regard Sartre as the most plain of philosophers, unlike Heidegger and Husserl perhaps. Once one has his vocabulary down the writing subject is simple.

Heidegger's concept of essents and dasein was a contemporary, different point of view of the experience/essents discussion. I am somewhat rusty on that area. In fact I haven't even read Hegel and Kant in 30 years although Kierkegaard's criticism of Hegel and romanticism was good reading in a course available from Coursera. From the U of Copenhagen.

Lately I have considered theories about non-locality in physics, and that probably is off topic. As someone wrote about metaphysics recently, there are two parts to it; the objective, exterior elements and the subjective, epistemological matters. I believe one requires the physical for the mind to exist, although spirit may transcend the physical, while Sartre may have regarded mind as preceding the physical? Sartre's philosophical narrative of an observer would work in a universe built as virtual reality or numerous other forms, yet in a level 4 multiverse of Tegmark mind would be switching between universes with each thought in dual mode with structure; determinism and inderminism occurring concurrently. Once one perceives and forms ideas in whatever epistemological manner actually occurs,

Ideas about experience preceding essents follow, and with so many theories about the relation of consciousness to subconsciousness as an wholistic temporal event, the matter becomes sticky.

Sartre's formation of abstract metaphysical opinions might be ordinary, while his narrative about experience is extraordinary. The Critique is valuable for describing social reality with practical political edification in regard to challenges facing all of humanity empirically.

Existence vs Essence

I would say it's a language category issue, and metaphysics. Fields and particles construed as essence precede existence as an idea (to stand apart from and reflect on being). The basic exception would be God eternal is, and is the word, in addition to being the essence of everything that is.

Some wouldn't like that condition. Was JP referring to Aristotle's essence vs existence?

Hoffstatter made a video on reality with nonlocality and relativity wherein she described attributes. Perhaps essences are relativistic from the viewpoint of an observer. It is safe to say that something exists yet less so about identifying an essence. In a sense Sartre was correct about existence and wrong about determinism if there isn't information available to falsify it. I will look for that other video and post it here later. 

https://youtu.be/Wsjgtp9XZxo?si=-4zyHpc2stWjtsbE