Determinism + Nihilism the norm?

[Jakalwarrior]

To me determinism can lead to nothing but nihilism. Especially in the context of our existence as congealed energy that will eventually dissappear leaving no record of our existence (unless the universe runs in an endless cycle, in which case our history would eventually be repeated).

Determinism is the only thing that can make sense to me. If there was a perfect copy of our universe which you delayed and then set back into motion everything would play out exactly the same right? That means that everything is possible to calculate given enough data (Which we are unable to obtain now, maybe ever). Heck if you could fit a snap shot of everything into a mega computer with all data included, you could calculate all the way forward and all the way backward to see all of time past present and future right? Assuming you had perfect understanding of the laws governing everything as well as the neccessary data about the state of everything.

Anyone else share a similar outlook on the universe or have a conflicting theory they would like to provide logical arguments for? Random quantum behavior making determinism impossible excluded, Im still mulling over that one myself and currently attribute it to a lack of ability to properly observe and account for everything. Unless ive missed some breakthroughs in that area, last I read up on it things were still mostly just thought excercises rather than anything provable. I cant help but see intricate explanations explaining things that we arent able to observe yet.

Sorry, ive just never had and INTJs to bounce things off of and wanted to see if some of my conclusions I couldn't avoid have come to others too. Or if they have advanced past that and can pull me forward in my quest to understand everything. Im still a universe noob.

[Darkmist]

Determinism? I haven't heard of that one. My theory is that we don't know and probably will never know, but my fascination lies in the past. Mythology in particular stirs my imagination of possibilty. Where do all the ancient myths that tie back to one another lead? To a common ancestor, if the myths are to be taken with a grain of actuality birthing them, of an alien background? (and what does it mean if this is the case?)

I'm talking Sumeria, Egypt, Sri Lanka and more--commonality. (The bible is one of the most recent compilations of a far more ancient story). My thinking is that there is commonality mixed with wishful thinking. Where lies the truth?

Is reality our reality? Is it our existence or that of another dimension such as a parallel world or numerous interconnecting worlds? Do we exist in our dreams, are our dreams our actual world, or is it a combination of both? Are we someone else's imagination?

Damn, I have to leave, as interesting as this is. Hopefully someone will pick it. Thanks for the post.

[zarathustra]

There is nothing wrong with using science to draw conclusions and explore the deterministic behavior of numerous laws in physics.

However one should always acknowledge his limited analysis capacity, and shall be deterministic for no more than what he can accurately determine.

In a few words, reality is too complex to fully analyze, we only study isolated problems and predict exact outcomes. It is not safe to either say that the world is utterly deterministic or to say that universe is non deterministic at all.

We can only be certain that the world is so complex, that we can't determine it's deterministic nature at least before coming up with a unified theory that will consistently explain nature's behavior ranging from a quark to a planet.

P.S. You can't be really sure if what you consider random is truly random or just the outcome of a complex function. Only one conclusion - you can't be really sure.

[acyckowski]

I submit for the sake of argument that reality is objective, but not completely knowable, for the reasons Zarathustra mentions.

How that plays out is that we seek ordered patterns of cause and effect. Determinism. What we cannot predict, we call random. The fact that we continuously improve our knowledge of the complex, thereby reducing the amount of randomness, does not necessarily mean we will approach a point where everything is known.

We may reach such a point, similar to the origin on a scale. In this scenario, we would discover that nothing is random, and that would settle things.

Or, the origin may represent a limit on the function of knowledge. That infinitessimal space between our knowledge and the boundary would then be called "random."

Problem is, we'll never really know for sure if perfect knowledge can be reached unless we reach it.

[Jakalwarrior]

We can never know if anything is truly deterministic or random but since almost everything we are able to observe seems deterministic, why label the things we can't as random? Unknowable doesnt equal random to me. It seems almost like adding some sort of mysticism or faith to the situation because we arent able to scientifically observe and understand it yet. Makes me feel like a greek looking at the moon.

[acyckowski]

I agree that unknowable and random are not exactly the same. That is the thrust of my argument: what we call "random" are things that may be either random or unknowable. We will not be able to eliminate the category of random until we have eliminated unknowable.

[universalis]

To me determinism can lead to nothing but nihilism. Especially in the context of our existence as congealed energy that will eventually dissappear leaving no record of our existence (unless the universe runs in an endless cycle, in which case our history would eventually be repeated).


I believe this too. Determinism was strong around the turn of last century but saw a decline in popularity as metaphysics grappled with the implications of quantum mechanics and how it undermined determinism. The implied randomness of hesineberg brought that thinking into upheavel.

However it's seen a re-emergence I think of late, partly because reality itself can be see as a giant wave function. If one takes into account non-local hidden variables the two theories are theoretically compatible.





mattosphere added to this post, 9 minutes and 32 seconds later...

Sorry I should also point out, although I call myself a nihilist, if its derived in the manner you suggested its technically more fatalism. Nihilism is more tinged with social and historical connotations with society, morality etc, where fatalism is a more accurate description of a scientific world view.

[blueback]

Even if the universe was deterministic we would never be able to make use of the fact.

In order to predict the future or reconstruct the past in a deterministic universe you must first know everything about everything. You have to have infinitely accurate measurements of every single thing in existence.

It's impossible to get infinitely accurate measurements and it's impossible to get measurements of everything in existence, so it's doubly impossible to do both at once.

The first is impossible because everything has a size. This means that, just in the case of space as an example, you can't be absolutely sure that you measured something from the center. In math we make up mythical creatures called "points" and use them to measure. But points don't exist in the real world. No matter how small something gets it still has a diameter and that means you can't be infinitely sure you measured it at the correct point. There will always be an error. The smaller the error the more accurate your predictions, but you will never get perfect measurements. Additionally, your ability to refine your measurements will be limited by the smallest thing that exists. You can't measure with an error less than that smallest threshold.

The second is impossible because you have to measure with something. If you capture a snapshot of everything in existence you would have to capture and store the information WITHOUT using anything in existence. A telescope can't look at itself. The things you measure with won't be able to measure their own information, so they will cause shadows in your data.

So, even if the universe is deterministic, it doesn't matter. It will still appear random to us.

[universalis]

It would appear from your post that you assume it must be measurable to be deterministic. If so, I would disagree with that position.

[enWTFp]

I even coined the term Determinism for my own writings, when I didn't have Internet, and I haven't read about it in books. I am very strongly convinced in it. If something happens, there is a strict law that explains it. I represent the world as a linear chain of strict determinators who can think of each other as gods in one of the directions, but I am convinced this sequence is infinite in both directions, and could be even non-linear. So all our perceptions are not changed - we don't know how the dice fall so to us chance exists. There will always be something non-deterministic from the relative view of a given determinator (e.g. humans). This we call chance, or god. Our rational mind is the weapon to predict and analyze it, using probabilities. I don't think any given determinator can ever determine everything, so uncertainty will always exist, it will only change its form. At the same time, I'm sure uncertainty exists only relatively, and from the point of view of a higher determinator the laws of our dice are clear. Hence, we should keep searching for truth and this process will never end, it will evolve forever.

I also think quantum mechanics will find its deterministic explanation at some point, and then another deeper uncertainty will arise. And so on. We should keep walking this road, it will never get boring.

[elfece]

Nihilism+Determinism, that's definitely my point of view. As I see it, non-determinism and randomness has no objective meaning by themselves; as long as we can conceptualize the universe 'til reaching a discrete scale of its parameters, I don't see where the bifurcation into the cause-effect chain could take place.
Even if we find "strange" things happening at that scale, that would be due to inherent limitations of we as observers rather than some kind of hidden magic going on. (I think true randomness really would be magic!), and even if every piece of time and space can be infinitely divided into sub-intervals, I still can't see place for the magic arising.

I think the universe works in a fully deterministic way but it's behavior is by no means computable: We, existing inside the system we want to analyze, are logically unable to get all the information needed to characterize "the Universe" as a whole (well, we can't even be sure if that information would be finite). If there exist some kind of hidden order in Everything that could lead to an algorithm that outputted an elegant and drastically compressed version of it, I don't think we, as insiders, could get it, handle it, nor use it, imagine a computer calculating a universe where's a computer computing a universe where's a computer computing...


And then, if universe is totally deterministic, but there is no possible way of knowing how will it behave in the future, and given the fact that our consciousness is product of a considerably (by our standards) complex function, and it's cool enough to give us a nice illusion of free will (after giving us the illusion of "us"), then we should just live in that illusion (in fact there's no choice, but I mean, hey you everybody, use your pseudo-free-will to live as if it were really free!)

[enWTFp]

Yes, free will exists. Love exists. They are determined by laws that we do not know (for now), that's it. As long as we don't know how they work, these notions keep their humanitarian nature that we have used for ages. Poetry is not useless yet.Well, if free will is determined by unknown laws then it is, by definition, deterministic, so it is not free at all,It is free. The freedom itself is a law. It is deterministic from the point of view of a higher determinator. From our point of view it is non-deterministic, so it is free. For now. Evolving towards its understanding we may become higher determinators and figure out our own previous functionality, while in the process invent ourselves to be more complex beings. Again there we would find other more sophisticated non-deterministic problems to solve. In a way this happens with the maturity of humanity all the time, because looking back at previous ages we won't do things like they did, and yet, they did the best out of their current state.

[elfece]

Well, if free will is determined by unknown laws then it is, by definition, deterministic, so it is not free at all, it is just a commercial name, just like "artificial intelligence" (which also has a great importance if human mind works in a deterministic way) at the level it's developed nowadays .

Of course, all those things have their humanitarian side, and it's far from useless, in fact thanks to it humankind have survived until today... "Poetry" will never become useless because it just works in a way hardwired in our nature. As long as humankind keeps being the way we conceive it today, people will still being emotional beings, even if we reach the point of having "scientific" answers to all the "emotional" questions that torment mankind since millenniums.

[Deliberator]

Hm... well the main argument against determinism besides the random quanta is our consciousness of free will. Determinist will tell you that free will is an illusion and absolutely anything you do is simply a product of your surroundings, genetics, and past experience. OK, can't argue with illusion I guess.

But since we don't feel that we're determined and we do seem to have this idea that things could go either way depending on what our decisions are, then what exactly is the purpose of determinism or fatalism? Are we getting any closer to manipulating the masses like Skinner so fervently hoped we could? Or is it just kinda there to make us feel better about the world being the way it is and the decisions that we make?

[Agile]

Wow, Deliberator, you said exactly what I was thinking and did so in a nice way. Hopefully someone on here can put determinism in a context that will cause it to have some use.

Otherwise I find it to be a philosophical gateway to nihilism, which is basically the absence of morals...or is it ethics...someone who wants to show off, please correct me, thanks.

Everything that has physical or social connections has both 'benefits', or positive consequences and 'obligations,' or negative consequences, however, with a model that frames everything in one's environment as 'moving parts,' this is nothing more than a fancy way to objectify humans and all other animals.

[universalis]

Wow, Deliberator, you said exactly what I was thinking and did so in a nice way. Hopefully someone on here can put determinism in a context that will cause it to have some use.


For me I'll explain how it affects my attitude to life.

I don't believe in morality, or right and wrong. No point feeling anger or remorse or revenge to anyone or anything since there is no free will. People are merely collection of atoms, configured from DNA and moulded by environment. How can you be upset with atoms?

Thus if someone harms me, I physically move myself to a different geographic location so as not be endangered again, anything more is wasted energy.

Since basically my non-action is the same as action, as everything is meaningless, you might as well just act naturally.

I've always needed a purpose to do things, however since I haven't found one, my only purpose on earth is to survive. Thus decisions should be based around that, until I can figure it all out.

[Deliberator]

For me I'll explain how it affects my attitude to life.

I don't believe in morality, or right and wrong. No point feeling anger or remorse or revenge to anyone or anything since there is no free will. People are merely collection of atoms, configured from DNA and moulded by environment. How can you be upset with atoms?

Thus if someone harms me, I physically move myself to a different geographic location so as not be endangered again, anything more is wasted energy.

Since basically my non-action is the same as action, as everything is meaningless, you might as well just act naturally.

I've always needed a purpose to do things, however since I haven't found one, my only purpose on earth is to survive. Thus decisions should be based around that, until I can figure it all out.

So, to you, determinism helps you explain the world in a way that seems logical and helps you remove yourself emotionally from what you experience.

The fact that everything is meaningless can be a justification for pretty much anything, including acting unnaturally. Meaninglessness doesn't have anything to do with acting any particular way at all. You "might as well" burn houses, dance on tabletops, study psychology, or eat blood sausage.

However, you choose (sorry, you're 'determined') to act naturally because it makes you more comfortable, whereas acting unnaturally might actually broaden your mind and alter your character for the better. Determinism/fatalism can lead to stagnancy and complacency. I would think these two things to be something an INTJ would abhor, merely due to the boredom of it all.

[universalis]

So, to you, determinism helps you explain the world in a way that seems logical and helps you remove yourself emotionally from what you experience.

The fact that everything is meaningless can be a justification for pretty much anything, including acting unnaturally. Meaninglessness doesn't have anything to do with acting any particular way at all. You "might as well" burn houses, dance on tabletops, study psychology, or eat blood sausage.

Indeed you are correct. Fundamentally I have no problem with say committing genocide, the trouble is it would however be a greater threat to my survival. Greater chance I'd go to jail or be executed. Also I've been brought up well. I am kind and generous and don't like to harm people etc, it would take more energy to go and change that and become a ("bad" person) without it increasing my survivability.

However, you choose (sorry, you're 'determined') to act naturally because it makes you more comfortable, whereas acting unnaturally might actually broaden your mind and alter your character for the better.

Define better. What is your base axiom?

[Deliberator]

Indeed you are correct. Fundamentally I have no problem with say committing genocide, the trouble is it would however be a greater threat to my survival. Greater chance I'd go to jail or be executed. Also I've been brought up well. I am kind and generous and don't like to harm people etc, it would take more energy to go and change that and become a ("bad" person) without it increasing my survivability.



Define better. What is your base axiom?

Better - in a way that would bring you more fulfillment, enrichment, satisfaction

It is a subjective argument of course; if you truly don't care then there's no valid argument against it. Just curious as to whether there is an inherent downside to determinism for the human psyche.

Personally I'd rather not fall into maintaining one philosophy for all my life. Dreadfully dull.

[zibber]

nihilism, which is basically the absence of morals

Whoa, whoa, whooooa there. Stop right there. Nihilism is the position that morals are relative, that there is no absolute "right" and "wrong", "good" and "evil". Not the absence of morals. I'm "moral" as hell.





zibber added to this post, 36 minutes and 19 seconds later...

Hm... well the main argument against determinism besides the random quanta is our consciousness of free will. Determinist will tell you that free will is an illusion and absolutely anything you do is simply a product of your surroundings, genetics, and past experience. OK, can't argue with illusion I guess.

Your definition of determinism is on too much of a macroscopic level. Determinism merely states that everything consists of fundamental building blocks that interact systematically (predictable, according to "laws"), and that all of reality theoretically is fully predictable.

(Obviously this leads eventually to the paradox of the operator of the hypothetical supercomputer fast-forwarding and then consciously contradicting the results, but that's a whole nother debate in my eyes.)

Now, I definitely think that your bolded quote is way more relevant in a discussion of free will than any notion of determinism. Determinism as I just described merely implies that whatever you "freely" decide is the result of microscopic events that couldn't have gone any other way. (Even if there were some randomness, you certainly didn't influence that randomness with your will or anything.)

But since we don't feel that we're determined and we do seem to have this idea that things could go either way depending on what our decisions are, then what exactly is the purpose of determinism or fatalism? Are we getting any closer to manipulating the masses like Skinner so fervently hoped we could? Or is it just kinda there to make us feel better about the world being the way it is and the decisions that we make?

There is no practical purpose, if that's what you meant. It's an ontological thing, appeals to consequences are quite irrelevant.

[universalis]

Curios that you say you are moral zibber?

I was also wondering if you subscribe to the philosophy of ontological reductionism? It seems to me to be very INTJ for me in nearly everything I do.

[Autoptic]

Whoa, whoa, whooooa there. Stop right there. Nihilism is the position that morals are relative, that there is no absolute "right" and "wrong", "good" and "evil". Not the absence of morals. I'm "moral" as hell.

Moral nihilism is the absence of morality except as a delusion. Moral relativity isn't nihilism. Just nihilism is a very wide topic and can mean the rejection of any truth usually, ignoring that the rejection itself would still be a truth. Nihil means actual nothing. It's philosophical oblivion in what ever range is being defined. Nietzsche was afraid of it and just failed to reach actual existentialism as a result appealing to nature as a new god and a supposed natural directive as a new religion. Rand did much the same in paradoxically trying to justify the only real justifier.

[Deliberator]

Your definition of determinism is on too much of a macroscopic level. Determinism merely states that everything consists of fundamental building blocks that interact systematically (predictable, according to "laws"), and that all of reality theoretically is fully predictable.

(Obviously this leads eventually to the paradox of the operator of the hypothetical supercomputer fast-forwarding and then consciously contradicting the results, but that's a whole nother debate in my eyes.)

Now, I definitely think that your bolded quote is way more relevant in a discussion of free will than any notion of determinism. Determinism as I just described merely implies that whatever you "freely" decide is the result of microscopic events that couldn't have gone any other way. (Even if there were some randomness, you certainly didn't influence that randomness with your will or anything.)

Determinism DOES imply that all human behaviors are caused by natural laws (ie genetics, instinct, environment, and past experience). Sorry to be missing the subtleties but it looks to me like you disagreed with me but then said the exact same thing.

There is no practical purpose, if that's what you meant. It's an ontological thing, appeals to consequences are quite irrelevant.

How is it irrelevant to want to know the purpose to a philosophy? Who exactly benefits from philosophy? Oh yeah, human beings... and only human beings. You act as though believing in one philosophy or another is somehow approaching a "truth", which is just as unfounded as believing in a religious doctrine.

The only thing philosophy does is help our minds make sense of the world around us; it has never helped us find truth. We still can't prove that God exists/doesn't exist, whether there is absolute truth or morality, whether we truly have free will. If anything, thoroughly exploring philosophy just makes it more obvious how little we really know.

So step outside the box and try to think, why do human beings philosophize at all? Going right along with the 'sciency' angle that INTJ's so adore, I would say it's because we are uncomfortable with uncertainty and use our massive brains to classify the world in a way that makes us feel more secure about what happens around us as well as how we behave and interact with the world.

[zibber]

Curios that you say you are moral zibber?

I was also wondering if you subscribe to the philosophy of ontological reductionism? It seems to me to be very INTJ for me in nearly everything I do.

Thanks for bringing that term to my attention, that definitely rings true to what I've been thinking about lately. (My original response to Jakal, which got lost on the cutting room floor, was actually about emergence.) The wiki blurb nicely words my position:

Everything that exists is made from a small number of basic substances that behave in regular ways[, and] emergence is an epistemological phenomenon that only exists through analysis or description of a system, not on a fundamental level.

Moral nihilism is the absence of morality except as a delusion. Moral relativity isn't nihilism. Just nihilism is a very wide topic and can mean the rejection of any truth usually, ignoring that the rejection itself would still be a truth. Nihil means actual nothing. It's philosophical oblivion in what ever range is being defined. Nietzsche was afraid of it and just failed to reach actual existentialism as a result appealing to nature as a new god and a supposed natural directive as a new religion. Rand did much the same in paradoxically trying to justify the only real justifier.

Hence "moral". Just because objective morality is a fiction, that doesn't mean I kill babies. I behave in a way quite true to conventional "morality" and have certain moral principles (let's call them ethical preferences, though) by which I broadly live. Don't think pragmatism and contextualism are incompatible with moral nihilism.

Determinism DOES imply that all human behaviors are caused by natural laws (ie genetics, instinct, environment, and past experience). Sorry to be missing the subtleties but it looks to me like you disagreed with me but then said the exact same thing.

Those aren't natural laws, and the part I agree on is using your "natural laws" in a discussion of free will.

How is it irrelevant to want to know the purpose to a philosophy? Who exactly benefits from philosophy? Oh yeah, human beings... and only human beings. You act as though believing in one philosophy or another is somehow approaching a "truth", which is just as unfounded as believing in a religious doctrine.

Sorry, but I thought that your intention in questioning the "purpose" of determinism was to undermine its justifiability. A philosophical system should not be open to attacks by way of appeals to consequences, I think.

Truth is a doozy. Philosophies, though, being constructed from the bottom up in a supposedly logical way, are certainly different from religious doctrines and can hardly be compared in the absolute way you are suggesting. Similar to scientific hypotheses, they are constantly refined and compared to our dynamic and increasingly complex understanding of reality. Religious doctrine X is religious doctrine X and its axioms are untouchable.

[Autoptic]

Hence "moral". Just because objective morality is a fiction, that doesn't mean I kill babies. I behave in a way quite true to conventional "morality" and have certain moral principles (let's call them ethical preferences, though) by which I broadly live. Don't think pragmatism and contextualism are incompatible with moral nihilism.

Nihilism doesn't require being stupid or foolish. It does require not pretending good and evil are anything but references for preference and utility. As useful as it'd be, the word ethics is problematic. It's definition doesn't require reference to anything but rules, but the word moral almost always pops up anyway.

[Middle English ethik, from Old French ethique (from Late Latin ēthica, from Greek ēthika, ethics) and from Latin ēthicē (from Greek ēthikē), both from Greek ēthikos, ethical, from ēthos, character; see s(w)e- in Indo-European roots.]
...
[Middle English carecter, distinctive mark, imprint on the soul, from Old French caractere, from Latin charactēr, from Greek kharaktēr, from kharassein, to inscribe, from kharax, kharak-, pointed stick.]

Basically, it's just one's persona or ego reduced to "formula", which has become loaded with cultural cruft, most of which obviously doesn't apply anymore, and religion which made most of the culture and vice versa and similarly, in the originating form at least whence the word, doesn't exist anymore either.

[zibber]

When I said "ethical preferences" I meant nothing other than "preferred modus operandi", just to clear that up.

Nihilism doesn't require being stupid or foolish. It does require not pretending good and evil are anything but references for preference and utility. As useful as it'd be, the word ethics is problematic. It's definition doesn't require reference to anything but rules, but the word moral almost always pops up anyway.

True; perhaps just using "nihilism" would be more efficiënt than the continued use of "moral nihilism".

Basically, it's just one's persona or ego reduced to "formula", which has become loaded with cultural cruft, most of which obviously doesn't apply anymore

Okay, this is one of the strongest critical definitions of "ethics" I've ever come across. Still, I think the conventional current (perhaps colloquial) definition is something along the lines of "how to live", that is, something dealing with the "oughts" of organized human existence.

[Deliberator]

Those aren't natural laws, and the part I agree on is using your "natural laws" in a discussion of free will.

Yes, they are, according to determinism they have to be. These things only exist in how they relate to the way the brain has interpreted and stored information, or to the way it is "wired" based on genetics. For example, "past experience" doesn't exist other than as a series of complex connections stored in the brain tissue of the person that experienced it. These associations, the determinist would argue, follow certain laws that (if we can measure and track them) we can use to predict and control human behavior.


Sorry, but I thought that your intention in questioning the "purpose" of determinism was to undermine its justifiability. A philosophical system should not be open to attacks by way of appeals to consequences, I think.

Truth is a doozy. Philosophies, though, being constructed from the bottom up in a supposedly logical way, are certainly different from religious doctrines and can hardly be compared in the absolute way you are suggesting. Similar to scientific hypotheses, they are constantly refined and compared to our dynamic and increasingly complex understanding of reality. Religious doctrine X is religious doctrine X and its axioms are untouchable.

The way philosophy and religion compare is based on how many assumptions one is forced to make in order to believe it and how reasonable these assumptions are. ALL philosophies require making at least some assumptions, like "there is some kind of reason to be moral", although they differ in their explanation.

[Autoptic]

True; perhaps just using "nihilism" would be more efficiënt than the continued use of "moral nihilism".

Moral nihilism is the position that there is no morality. It's not the same as moral relativism. Look up moral error theory.

Okay, this is one of the strongest critical definitions of "ethics" I've ever come across. Still, I think the conventional current (perhaps colloquial) definition is something along the lines of "how to live", that is, something dealing with the "oughts" of organized human existence.

Check any dictionary the word moral shows up in most definitions ruining the distinction thus my explanation.

Determined will is still will. Who I am determines what I do. What I am is the same as who I am. People do get squicked when you start calling yourself meat though. I am the part of the universe that has this will and thus it's mostly pointless to say it controls me.

A bit from Stranger in the Strange Land, grok being to know in the sense of drinking in the information and making it a part of yourself such that conscious thought isn't required as in second nature,
"You told me, 'God made the World.'"
"No, no!" Harshaw said hastily. "I told you that, while all these many religions said many things, most of them said, 'God made the World.' I told you that I did not grok the fullness, but that 'God' was the word that was used."
"Yes, Jubal," Mike agreed. "Word is 'God'" He added. "You grok."
"No, I must admit I don't grok."
"You grok," Smith repeated firmly. "I am explain. I did not have the word. You grok. Anne groks. I grok. The grass under my feet groks in happy beauty. But I needed the word. The word is God."
Jubal shook his head to clear it. "Go ahead."
Mike pointed triumphantly at Jubal. "Thou art God!"
Jubal slapped a hand to his face. "Oh, Jesus H. — What have I done? Look, Mike, take it easy! Simmer down! You didn't understand me. I'm sorry. I'm very sorry! Just forget what I've been saying and we'll start over again on another day. But — "
"Thou art God," Mike repeated serenely. "That which groks. Anne is God. I am God. The happy grass are God, Jill groks in beauty always. Jill is God. All shaping and making and creating together — ." He croaked something in Martian and smiled.

Ignoring that the book had mental powers, souls, and apparently actual happy grass and possibly a cricket, heh. My will is the will of the universe. I am the part that wants, knows, etc. Incidentally, the ego dissolution such things brings to some people's mind, in a amusingly perverse way, actually just destroys this fact. That's a long way of saying I'm an existentialist, I think.

[Nihilum]

I am definetly a nihilist, but how do you define determinism. I believe that the universe has a predestined fate in some way that could only be changed by unsticking yourself from space and time, but that would render you unable to create change in the timeline. If you weren't unsticked and somehow went back in time, that would happen in the timeline anyways. So I guess nihilism+determinism. You cannot escape fate.