I still bet you’re a determinist!
In my interview on the videocast Brain in a Vat, I gave an answer that, while correct, isn’t the best answer to the question I was asked. The topic was my attempt to support determinism by citing Clark Griswold’s reaction to the failure of his Christmas light display. Co-host Jason Werbeloff asked if Clark’s lights might have failed because of some indeterministic glitch beforehand, in which case the incident wouldn’t support determinism after all.
I replied that this indeterministic explanation only pushes the problem back a step: There will be no explanation for why the indeterministic glitch itself occurred. True, but not the best answer in the context of Jason’s question.
The better answer is to point out that when Jason felt obliged to offer his alternative explanation, he thereby revealed his commitment to determinism! Unless you accept determinism, you should feel no pressure to say that anything went wrong beforehand. Only determinism insists that something went wrong beforehand with Clark’s lights.
By contrast, indeterminism says that an event can fail to happen even though everything needed for it to happen is in place and nothing prevents it from happening. Indeterminists say that a radioactive atom that decayed could have failed to decay without there being anything different about the world beforehand. Equally, then, Clark’s lights can fail to work for literally no reason ‒ not even an indeterministic reason. When we recoil from that suggestion, we reveal our commitment to determinism.
As we now know, I was necessitated by prior conditions not to give that better answer at the time of Jason’s question. So be it. But I’m glad of the present opportunity to make the point.
