Register to reply

Arguments Against Superdeterminism

by ueit
Tags: arguments, superdeterminism
Share this thread:
wuliheron
#127
Oct3-10, 04:29 PM
P: 1,967
Assuming you can test it is there any conceivable use for such a theory? Likewise, assuming you could find out the initial conditions how could you possibly calculate anything useful? It seems little better than assuming the entire universe is stochastic and nonlocal effects are merely coincidence. Certainly if it can be tested it might be interesting to see the results, but without any possible constructive use I would personally doubt there validity.
ThomasT
#128
Oct4-10, 05:41 AM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by Boy@n View Post
So, if determinism is true in nature, for all scales and dimensions (as most people here seem to believe), then this means that if I had to choose, say, 10 numbers out of 1000 (no rules imposed), my picks are determined and not free choices at all?
Yes, according to determinism.

Quote Quote by Boy@n View Post
The mere ability to ask if free-will is possible tells me, it is.
If our universe is evolving deterministically, then we might have the illusion of free will without actually having free will.

But don't worry, there's absolutely no way to 'prove' that our universe is evolving deterministically. At least not afaik.
nismaratwork
#129
Oct4-10, 07:37 AM
P: 2,284
Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
Yes, according to determinism.

If our universe is evolving deterministically, then we might have the illusion of free will without actually having free will.

But don't worry, there's absolutely no way to 'prove' that our universe is evolving deterministically. At least not afaik.
Nor AFAIK either... and we still enjoy life so... does it matter? If the universe is deterministic then we still enjoy a particular illusion that has such fidelity that we can never expose it. Not bad, all things considered.
Boy@n
#130
Oct4-10, 04:28 PM
P: 240
Quote Quote by nismaratwork View Post
Nor AFAIK either... and we still enjoy life so... does it matter? If the universe is deterministic then we still enjoy a particular illusion that has such fidelity that we can never expose it. Not bad, all things considered.
ThomasT and nismaratwork thanks for calming me down, ops sorry, I should thank Universe for making you two to say those words. ;)

But really, the more I am thinking about it (in pleasure not worrying sense) the more it seems to me that even though physical world 'must' be deterministic (so it's consistent and natural laws valid and universal) I see no logical reason for self-consciousness to be the same way, even though consciousness may well energe via physical existence alone.
SW VandeCarr
#131
Oct4-10, 04:53 PM
P: 2,499
Quote Quote by Boy@n View Post

it seems to me that enven though physical world 'must' be deterministic (so it's consistent and natural laws valid and universal).
As an early participant in this thread, I resisted getting involved again. However I feel compelled to say there is no "must'. The world is probabilistic at the quantum level. This is the science. Whether there is a deeper deterministic substratum is a matter of speculation.

Moreover, there is no known way to predict when a given atom will decay. It appears completely random although the half-life of any isotope is well defined from large ensembles of atoms. The 'need' for a completely determined universe is not founded in science, but in a belief that every event must have a cause and in principle that cause can be known. That's called philosophy.
Boy@n
#132
Oct5-10, 04:06 PM
P: 240
Quote Quote by SW VandeCarr View Post
As an early participant in this thread, I resisted getting involved again. However I feel compelled to say there is no "must'. The world is probabilistic at the quantum level. This is the science. Whether there is a deeper deterministic substratum is a matter of speculation.

Moreover, there is no known way to predict when a given atom will decay. It appears completely random although the half-life of any isotope is well defined from large ensembles of atoms. The 'need' for a completely determined universe is not founded in science, but in a belief that every event must have a cause and in principle that cause can be known. That's called philosophy.
I appreciate your response and clarification, I even agree with it.

I'd like to clarify myself too. I was not referring to quantum world though, but to classical. I see classical emerging out of quantum in alike manner I see consciousness emerging out of both (brains being a manifestation of both quantum fluctuations in brains which we can observe, when we silence our mind, like noise, or say particles of that which may through our will form into thoughts, images, words etc. and classical construct of physical brains in sense of organized molecules).

Thus, I agree that on quantum scale all happens pretty random, while on classical physical scale, as we experience it, all is consistent, natural laws being universaly valid, so, we could say physical reality of 'our' scale would be developing in a deterministic way if let to itself. But since consciousness and moreso self-consciousness can and does interfere with it (not in sense that free-will can violate natural laws, but it sense that when multiple choices arise free-will enables us to choose one specific to our consciousness interpretation, which models own rules and values - not being universal at all, but specific to individual's consciousness). So, our Universe is not evolving in deterministic way, but in a mixed way of determinism and non-determinism.
SprocketPower
#133
Nov26-10, 05:59 PM
P: 27
SW VandeCarr,

Philosophy, like math, is a theoretical science, and is included under cognitive science.
nismaratwork
#134
Nov26-10, 07:55 PM
P: 2,284
Quote Quote by SprocketPower View Post
SW VandeCarr,

Philosophy, like math, is a theoretical science, and is included under cognitive science.
In no way is philosophy a science in the sense of the word that renders it meaningful... it is an art... only the study of philosophers under an fMRI or MEG is real science relating to it.
SprocketPower
#135
Nov26-10, 10:47 PM
P: 27
There is no way philosophy is not a science. Like other sciences it does analysis, makes observations, formulates models, and does rational inquiry, and uses systematic logic and deduction to draw conclusions. Philosophy is definitely and absolutely a science and is definitely and absolutely not an art.
SW VandeCarr
#136
Nov27-10, 05:24 AM
P: 2,499
Quote Quote by SprocketPower View Post
There is no way philosophy is not a science. Like other sciences it does analysis, makes observations, formulates models, and does rational inquiry, and uses systematic logic and deduction to draw conclusions. Philosophy is definitely and absolutely a science and is definitely and absolutely not an art.

Quid est in mundus? Back when philosophy was generally accepted as a science, educated people anywhere could read my first sentence as easily as if it were in their native language. It's still pretty simple Latin, I suppose, meaning "What is in the world?". That's the basic ontological question that natural philosophy was supposed to answer. However, experimentally based sciences and "special sciences' based on careful observation and analysis have since de facto displaced pure philosophy in answering these questions. I don't know if any university philosophy department in the modern world has a budget for experimentally based research, but if you know of one, please inform us.

To the extent that you can consider subjects like mathematics, logic and linguistics as sciences within philosophy, then modern philosophy does have a scientific aspect. You might ask how many university mathematics departments want to be part of the philosophy department. If you Google "Philosophy of Science", you get a lot of results. However, if you Google "Philosophy as Science" you don't get much. Here's one result:

http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Cont/ContSten.htm
nismaratwork
#137
Nov27-10, 06:06 AM
P: 2,284
Quote Quote by SprocketPower View Post
There is no way philosophy is not a science. Like other sciences it does analysis, makes observations, formulates models, and does rational inquiry, and uses systematic logic and deduction to draw conclusions. Philosophy is definitely and absolutely a science and is definitely and absolutely not an art.
In what way does philosophy even CLAIM to follow the scientific method? SW VandeCarr has made a fine point, now it's time for you to do the same if you can. The scientific method is a clear method which philosophy doesn't want or attempt to emulate, and is in fact, an art.
SprocketPower
#138
Nov27-10, 03:08 PM
P: 27
SW VandeCarr,

The article is inrteresting. Philosophy is a general and theoretical science and a basic one. Descartes classified it as the root with 2 branches leading from it including all the other sciences. But your claim that the experimental sciences have displaced philosophy is not at all true because philosophy has always dealt with different questions. And your not goingto find it in anexperimental framework because it is theoretical. And here is what 1 of my classmates said in our on-line metaphysics course:

"Here, Here !

Philosophy is not just a science. It's the science of sciences. It's the source and the core of every science. This can be easily viewed especially in ancient philosophy texts and especially Plato. It is with philosophy that human intellect tried to answer basic and more complex questions about the natural world: reality, being, and existence. It is the effort to answer the primary "why" behind everything."

nismaratwork,

SW VandeCarr did not make a fine point at all and I did. And I didn't say philosophy follows the standard scientific method. It is theoretical, not experimental. If you say that philosophy isn't a science you would have to say the same thing about math and theoretical physics, too.
SprocketPower
#139
Nov27-10, 03:10 PM
P: 27
Bell says that SD would get rid of superposition. How would it do this?
Maui
#140
Nov27-10, 03:43 PM
P: 724
Quote Quote by nismaratwork View Post
In what way does philosophy even CLAIM to follow the scientific method? SW VandeCarr has made a fine point, now it's time for you to do the same if you can. The scientific method is a clear method which philosophy doesn't want or attempt to emulate, and is in fact, an art.


Philosophy is an inseparable part of the interpretation of the experiemental facts of science and deeply rooted in its assumptions, so science is a form of art?
SprocketPower
#141
Nov27-10, 04:03 PM
P: 27
ThomasT and kote,

Why would someone simulate reality? And if we are living in a Matrix, then the reality out there would be the same as in here so it doesn't have much meaning whether we are or not. But there is something that seems rather strange to me and that's the supercluster shaped like a human figure-- a clue hidden in plain sight? Sometimes I wonder.
nismaratwork
#142
Nov27-10, 04:08 PM
P: 2,284
You resurrected a thread to argue a point that is absurd... I'm gone.
Evo
#143
Nov27-10, 07:55 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,477
Time to say goodbye.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Why is there such little talk regarding superdeterminism? General Discussion 23
Arguments against LQG Beyond the Standard Model 24
Creationist Arguments. Biology 14
Geometric arguments General Math 5
Two contradictory arguments... Introductory Physics Homework 15