Moving the umoved mover (Refutation of Determism Part 1)

The Greek philosophers concluded long ago that it was irrational to believe that something could come from nothing. This became a proof that learning was in fact a type of recollection of memory, debunking earlier pre-Socratic conceptions that the mind was a blank slate with nothing present. The deterministic chain uses an analogous form of reasoning; there is no effect which has no cause and therefore no cause which has no effect. This seems reasonable enough, however, if we posit a truly original and unique happening in the universe, the immutable chain of consistency and predictability becomes weaker and difficult to sustain.

First let us acknowledge the logical contradiction implicit in the cause/effect relationship conceived by determinism. If indeed there is no effect which is without cause and all effects become new causes for new effects, how can we begin the chain of events all together? A classic chicken/egg paradox, it seems that in order for determinism’s logical premises to be true, there must have been an initial cause which was not the effect of another cause, but a cause that is intrinsically as such, existing solely as a cause without catalyst.

Ergo, the beginning of the deterministic chain in some way does not resemble the rest of the links that follow. We may call this unique event the original occurrence; so it seems that the original occurrence does not obey the laws implicit to determinism and becomes the sole exception to the rules that are established as the chain goes further. And yet, according theoretically to determinism, this cause – unaccounted for in a deterministic chain – is the very event that gives motivation to the entire system. Determinism must first break its own laws before it can establish itself; hence the original occurrence is proof of hard determinism’s weakness from the very beginning.

But what if we were able to find more contradictions later on in the chain? What if the original occurrence doesn’t happen just once (at the beginning), but occurs frequently, unpredictably throughout the deterministic chain, shaping the way it operates in the future? If this assertion is proved true, there would then be some uncertainty about the causal cycle in the determinist’s paradigm. Determinism has no room for purblind causes and unforeseeable effects, and therefore any exceptions to causal rules would break the chain’s steadfast grip on reality altogether.
We need look no further than the human mind to see examples of original occurrences happening sporadically, impulsively, and without necessary and sufficient cause.

In our short history, humanity has made leaping advancements, founded on unique ideas, in everything from simple technology to complex mapping of intergalactic systems. This is not to suggest that discoveries (such as Einstein’s relativism, Archimedes’s volume, or Columbus’s America) are original occurrences exactly, but truly unique, inimitable inventions are reflective of a creative process that must exist outside of the deterministic world. When primitive man invented the wheel, a determinist might deconstruct this advancement as the effect of the causal problem of moving things heavier than one could carry. But the first man to formulate such an idea in his head, the first visualization of tool (as a concept), or even the first notion that natural elements could be used in synergy to create more useful devices is a fundamentally distinctive idea that was formed without precedence, root cause, or external factors. The idea of tool came exclusively from the mind that first posited it, bringing an abstract thought into the realm of logical possibility. It’s true that determinism may explain how this man’s mind and body have come to be (we’ll look at the deterministic problem of evolution shortly), and even how his brain has come to think.

However, determinism cannot produce a cause which affects the human mind to think originally. Instead, we can surmise that concepts instrumental in shaping humanity (tool, society, power, love) were quite literally brought into being by original causes – the thoughts created by the very first thinkers to think them.

Origination, occurring both in the human mind and in the external universe, is intrepid proof of determinism’s inconsistency. The original thought is one example of an original occurrence insofar that it is a unique, distinct, and self-evident cause without an effect that necessarily created it. Moreover, it is often the instantiation of such fundamental causes that shapes a particular future. After the idea of the tool was conceived, and the wheel created, many more tools would come into existence as the effects of that central cause. In a way, the same original occurrence that hard determinism relies upon for its inception becomes the very consequence which defeats it every time one of these instances happens. If a deterministic chain is formed and re-shaped every time an original thought is brought into being, our initial picture of the inexorable linear path becomes is impossible. Far more probable is that the original thinker creates his own self-determined world in the context of his original thought.

Therefore, it is not predetermined events which create static and unchangeable universes that we are slaves to; rather it is through the self-determined actions of a unique individual – the first to think of law, society, power, superiority, or love – that brings a deterministic world into existence. We don’t live in one world of hard determinism. We live in many conflicting self-determined worlds, where our original thoughts, actions, and choices create the constraints we must overcome.

And yet unique causes with no effect are not limited to human thoughts. When we think of Darwinian evolution, we realize that humanity, and all other evolved species, came into being not through the course of predictable, causal laws. While there might be evolutionary trends and theories, evolution spontaneously occurs most strongly through unexpected events. Anomalies shape the future, not certainties. Essentially, the first fish that jumped out of the water and walked is symbolically synonymous with the first man to conceive of ‘tool’. The first organism to move, the first creature to give birth, the first form of life to gather food, and even the first Neanderthal to conceptualize and use verbal communication are a few of the many examples of original occurrences which were instrumental in shaping the world thereafter. And, just as before, it is these events themselves which create their own deterministic world, just like the abovementioned initial cause supposedly created the larger determinist picture. Yet we already stipulated that the determinist’s world allows, by logical implication, for only one original occurrence at the beginning of existence which brought forth everything that would and could ever come to be. It also suggests that all these things succeed in singular causal sequence.

Do we really live in a world where there are no original occurrences or thoughts? Confronted with the entirety of existence and the originality of unprecedented events, perhaps hard determinism does not have such a strong hold on the reality it claims to control…