Has determinism ever bothered you?

[Billy T]

... You cannot draw a line and say “this is me” and “this is my body”. They are not only intertwined (with multiple self-referential causal loops), they are also interdependent.

MF and I have had a long an fruitful exchange on this subject in thread "What price free will?" and I think we understand and respect each other's positions, but he is being kept so busy that he has not responded to my last 2 posts there.

I disagree, slightly, with his statement above. It is entirely correct if as most people do, one associates "I" with a physical body, but in error either if one is a soul (which I do not want to consider) OR if one is only an informational processes in some computational facility (specifically a human brain at the current stage of technology). Then one can separate the "I" from the "computational facility" as one can separate software from hardware. Obviously one can not do anything with the software alone. Thus, executing software (or the informational "I" process) is dependent on the hardware. For example, in the case of "me" and my brain, drugs may modify "me."

Where the question gets interesting is if the software that is "me" in my understanding (see attachment which is same as to first post of the "what price free will" thread) can be something other than "deterministic" or "random" in its logic, at least in part - logic I have called "Middle Ground", MG.
(1)If universe is deterministic, there is no free will as most people understand these words, but MF has a perfectly good definition that keeps him happy with the concept that he does have "free will" even in a completely deterministic universe.
(2)If there is chance as may be the case and is commonly believed to be the case (because of quantum theory as understood in the Copenhagen school), then one can no doubt also define a "Free Will", but this free will is to me only chance and not what I call "genuine free will." Personally if that is all there is, I prefer MF's free will and to rely upon evolution to make me "chose" appropriate acts. -That is, I want the wisdom developed by evolution, not a random decision, if I can not have genuine free will.

It all comes down to the question: Is there a MG? Clearly determinism and random are mutually exclusive concepts, but are they all inclusive of all logical possibilities? - That is the question, which MF has promised to think about.

If it can be shown that no MG exists, then I join MF in his definition of FW but until that is shown, I will continue to believe that the very advanced "computer" which is the human brain, under the influence of evolution, has found this MG.

 

[The Rev]

Ultimately, it's all academic, since we can choose to believe either way and there will be no way to prove either choice wrong. That being said, yes, the idea that what I am is simply a set of links in long causal chains is repugnant to me.

Chain, chain chain...chain of causality...

$$\Sigma$$

The Rev

 

[moving finger]

Ultimately, it's all academic, since we can choose to believe either way and there will be no way to prove either choice wrong. That being said, yes, the idea that what I am is simply a set of links in long causal chains is repugnant to me.

and this idea being "repugnant" to one, one's intuitive and unscientific response is to believe in the impossible, because believing the impossible makes one feel better

Alice laughed, "There's no use trying," she said, "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
Lewis Carroll

MF

 

[moving finger]

MF and I have had a long an fruitful exchange on this subject in thread "What price free will?" and I think we understand and respect each other's positions, but he is being kept so busy that he has not responded to my last 2 posts there.

Apologies, Billy T, I have a “day-job” too, and I did not want to respond to your last posts until I had time to sit down and think about your ideas.

I disagree, slightly, with his statement above. It is entirely correct if as most people do, one associates "I" with a physical body, but in error either if one is a soul (which I do not want to consider) OR if one is only an informational processes in some computational facility (specifically a human brain at the current stage of technology). Then one can separate the "I" from the "computational facility" as one can separate software from hardware.

I agree one can separate software from hardware, but I do not agree that this is a good analogy for the concept of “self”. Let us imagine a “gedanken” experiment – Einstein’s brain. Let us imagine that some incredibly advanced alien race had managed to analyse the way that Einstein’s brain worked to the finest detail, such that they could reproduce his brain, in it’s entirety, on one of their computers as a program (in hardware plus software). By running the program they are able to reproduce Einstein’s thoughts in precise detail (I know, I know, there are lots of assumptions here, but it is a thought experiment after all). It is possible for the aliens to effectively “have a conversation with Einstein” by running the program, and their program responds in the same way that Einstein would have done. Now, one can separate the “software” from the hardware and one can even write down the details of the software and the hardware. But the software listing by itself does not “behave like Einstein”, and the idle hardware also does not “behave like Einstein”. The “Einstein behaviour” emerges only when the software runs on the hardware.
In a similar sense, I believe the essence of “self” only emerges when a brain processes information in a certain way – it is this act of information processing which generates the “self”. Summed up nicely by Antonio Damasio :

The core “You” is only born as the story is told, within the story itself. “You” exist as a mental being when primordial stories are being told, and only then. “You” are the music, while the music lasts.
Antonio Damasio, The Feeling of What Happens

Obviously one can not do anything with the software alone. Thus, executing software (or the informational "I" process) is dependent on the hardware. For example, in the case of "me" and my brain, drugs may modify "me."

Exactly. I’m glad we think the same way on this. But if you now agree that it is the execution of the software on the hardware which generates the “self”, this surely contradicts with your earlier statement “Then one can separate the "I" from the "computational facility" as one can separate software from hardware.”?

Where the question gets interesting is if the software that is "me" in my understanding (see attachment which is same as to first post of the "what price free will" thread) can be something other than "deterministic" or "random" in its logic, at least in part - logic I have called "Middle Ground", MG.
(1)If universe is deterministic, there is no free will as most people understand these words, but MF has a perfectly good definition that keeps him happy with the concept that he does have "free will" even in a completely deterministic universe.
(2)If there is chance as may be the case and is commonly believed to be the case (because of quantum theory as understood in the Copenhagen school), then one can no doubt also define a "Free Will", but this free will is to me only chance and not what I call "genuine free will." Personally if that is all there is, I prefer MF's free will and to rely upon evolution to make me "chose" appropriate acts. -That is, I want the wisdom developed by evolution, not a random decision, if I can not have genuine free will.

I would summarise the above by saying that (IMHO) whether the universe is deterministic or indeterministic (either partially or in entirety), there is simply no free will in the naïve sense of free will (because IMHO most naïve concepts of free will are based on an intuitive feeling of free will and not on a rigorous and self-consistent definition of free will), BUT I nevertheless believe free will can be rigorously defined such that free will exists and is entirely compatible with both determinism and indeterminism.

It all comes down to the question: Is there a MG? Clearly determinism and random are mutually exclusive concepts, but are they all inclusive of all logical possibilities? - That is the question, which MF has promised to think about.

I’ve been mulling this over the last few days. If I take the accepted definition of determinism (this defines the “deterministic space”), and I then take the negation of determinism – which to me seems to be “indeterminism” – which defines the “indeterministic space”, then the problem I have is there seems to be “no space left over” – ie there seems (to me) to be nothing left which is neither deterministic nor indeterministic, there is no “room” for this middle ground.

Definition of Determinism : The universe, or any self-contained part thereof, is said to be evolving deterministically if it has only one possible state at time t1 which is consistent with its state at some previous time t0 and with all the laws of nature.
Definition of Indeterminism : The universe, or any self-contained part thereof, is said to be evolving indeterministically if there is more than one possible state at time t1 which is consistent with its state at some previous time t0 and with all the laws of nature.

Do we accept the above two definitions? If yes, then they seem to be perfect “mirrors” of each other, defining the whole space of possibilities, with no space “left over” for anything else to get a toe-hold?

If we could somehow define the “properties" of this middle ground, we might be able to specify where it fits in relation to determinism and indeterminism. In the absence of a definition of middle ground I simply cannot see how it fits in.
MF

 

[Billy T]

Responce to MF is in another thread

See post 100 in the "What price Free Will?" thread for my response to one point of Moving Finger's that is here. (And several others that he made there.) Perhaps these two "free will threads" can be (and should be) merged in some way. As the starter of the other one, I would agree to this, but do not know how it could be done. (I also don't know why this new one was created as "determinism" is a central discussion there also. Why I started the "What price FW" thread is clearly explained in the first post.)

 

[moving finger]

See post 100 in the "What price Free Will?" thread for my response to one point of Moving Finger's that is here. (And several others that he made there.)

see you there...

MF

 

[C0mmie]

I don't believe determinism has been defined properly in this thread. For something to be predetermined, there has to be an observer that can do the determining, which means that this observer has to be aware of the speed and velocity of every particle in the universe (or whatever system he is studying) and then extrapolate from that into the future. Now, given what we learned from QM, there cannot be an oberver of any kind that does not affect the outcome of whatever he's observing, so if you attemp to know everything about a particular system, you "observing" it will have an unpredictable effect on it, which will affect the way in which your system behaves. Thus, determinism in itself presents a logical contradiction, and we cannot talk about determinism unless we can postulate of such an impartial observer.

I like the definition of free will that has been presented earlier - that it would require uncaused causes. That is also a logical fallacy, because it leaves one to ask the question "what caused it?"

In my opinion, neither can exist.

 

[Billy T]

I don't believe determinism has been defined properly in this thread. For something to be predetermined, there has to be an observer that can do the determining, which means that this observer has to be aware of the speed and velocity of every particle in the universe (or whatever system he is studying) and then extrapolate from that into the future. Now, given what we learned from QM, there cannot be an oberver of any kind that does not affect the outcome of whatever he's observing, so if you attemp to know everything about a particular system, you "observing" it will have an unpredictable effect on it, which will affect the way in which your system behaves. Thus, determinism in itself presents a logical contradiction, and we cannot talk about determinism unless we can postulate of such an impartial observer.

To save him the trouble (and time) I note that MF has given (in post 39) the following commonly accepted definition:
"Definition of Determinism : The universe, or any self-contained part thereof, is said to be evolving deterministically if it has only one possible state at time t1 which is consistent with its state at some previous time t0 and with all the laws of nature."

You view relates more to the question of epistemology, than to determinism. Also you should be aware that long before QM was discovered this observer you speak of (LaPlace called it a demon more than 100 years ago) caused a conceptual problem in that knowledge about every thing had to be contained in some storage system (as moderns would call it) and as this storage system was also part of the universe, knowledge of everything in the universe would need to be self reflexive, and arguably a divergent accumulation. Thus there were critics of LaPlace (and of your ideas above) more than 100 years ago! If you are not willing to inform yourself about a subject that has been discussed for a long time, at least you should read the recent posts, like MF's #39.

I like the definition of free will that has been presented earlier - that it would require uncaused causes. That is also a logical fallacy, because it leaves one to ask the question "what caused it?"...

Glad you like one, but which? - MF's, which is consistent with determinism, or my feeble attempts to define Genuine Free Will (mainly by telling things GFW is not.), which is not, or some one else's?
As far as your conclusion that a logical fallacy exists, there is certainly none in MF's definition and even mine is not worse off than either "Uncaused causes" presented now:
(1) The widely accepted (by the scientific community) concept of the universe and time starting in a "big bang."
(2) The widely accepted (by the religious community) concept at a "first God" exists, one who was not created by some greater God.

Very few people are not part of at least one of these two communities and quite a few are members of both.

I say "no worse off" (implying perhaps "better off") because I at least tell how a non-material "agent" can exist in the physical world (as only information - See attachment to my first post of this thread, #36.).

I can not define the logic which let's this "agent," at least partially, causes things without his contribution itself being caused by other things. (The agent of GFW must be an uncaused cause, at lease in part.) I suspect this characteristic has to do with self referencing logic loops etc. such as the famous four word sentence: "This sentence is false.". I understand that this type of self referencing logic has been placed on reasonably solid grounds by B. Shaw and A. Whitehead in some classic papers, which I have never read, but I am willing also to think that still other forms of logic may exist that are neither random nor deterministic, as is required for the logic of the "uncaused agent" I suggest may exist. - I want to be clear - I have never claimed that GFW exists, only I hope it does, so that the common feeling almost everyone has could be true, and not just the most universal of illusions.

 

[C0mmie]

@Billy_T

To save him the trouble (and time) I note that MF has given (in post 39) the following commonly accepted definition: "Definition of Determinism : The universe, or any self-contained part thereof, is said to be evolving deterministically if it has only one possible state at time t1 which is consistent with its state at some previous time t0 and with all the laws of nature." You view relates more to the question of epistemology, than to determinism.

I was specifically trying to say that I don't think we can define determinism without epistemology. I know this seems offtopic, but how can we discuss certainty of something in reality without specifying how we'd go about measuring it or observing it, and the fact that there is no possible way to observe a system entirely implies that we can't use the concept of determinism.

Also you should be aware that long before QM was discovered this observer you speak of (LaPlace called it a demon more than 100 years ago) caused a conceptual problem in that knowledge about every thing had to be contained in some storage system (as moderns would call it) and as this storage system was also part of the universe, knowledge of everything in the universe would need to be self reflexive, and arguably a divergent accumulation.

No, I wasn't aware of LePlace's view, but what I was referring to is slightly different. The observer in my post did not have to "know" everything in the universe, but only everything in a specific closed system. Thus if you are studying a chemical reaction in a lab, what LePlace said doesn't apply. You are not necessarily a part of it. However, QM does apply because you can't observe it without affecting it, and thus you can't predict the outcome with 100% certainty, even if you know all the physical/chemical laws involved.

Regarding the attachment in post #36:
I can agree that we have an internal representation of reality, and we experience free will directly in this internal representation. However, this process of internally representing reality would have to be reducible to the physical brain. So for everything that happens in this internal fantasy would have a cooresponding neural process, and neural processes have to happen in such a way as to not violate physical laws. So even though you experience free will, the process that makes up this experience is entirely physical, and if you observe your brain at this level, nothing you do is ever free. The introduction of this internal reality to the debate just adds an increased level of complexity.

Oh and thanks for pointing out the things I overlooked in my previous post. I hope this one cleared up what I meant to say.

 

[moving finger]

I was specifically trying to say that I don't think we can define determinism without epistemology. I know this seems offtopic, but how can we discuss certainty of something in reality without specifying how we'd go about measuring it or observing it, and the fact that there is no possible way to observe a system entirely implies that we can't use the concept of determinism.

With respect, I suggest you are confusing "determinism" with "determinability".

Determinism (or indeterminism) is an ontic property - it relates to "how the world is" and not to "how we see the world". A world can be deterministic (or indeterministic) in the absence of any observers; the property of determinism is not dependent on whether there are observers around or not.

What you are calling "determinism" is in fact "determinability" - ie whether the world can be observed to be operating deterministically or not. Determinability by definition requires an observer; it is an epistemic as opposed to an ontic property of the world.

It makes no sense to talk about determinability in absence of observers, but determinism is not dependent on observers.

MF

 

[Billy T]

MF has responded for me this time but I will add a two comments:

...what I was referring to is slightly different. The observer in my post did not have to "know" everything in the universe, but only everything in a specific closed system. ...

In most circumstances, one can consider a "closed system" but when one is discussing whether or not the future is determined, the concept of a "closed system" is a good example of your "logical fallacy." This is true because there is no shielding of gravity and the future under discussion can be very distant. To take a specific example Pluto's gravitational force does not affect Venus very much, but accumulated of time, this force will cause significant displacement of Venus. Even in your chemistry lab example the gradient of Pluto's gravity could make the Brownian motion of reacting molecules very slightly different on one side of the container than the other. That is the future here on Earth of a deterministic universe with PLuto is different from Earth's future without Pluto existing.

This may be hard for you to accept when I only speak of it's gravity effects, but once you bring humans into consideration the effect can be large and quick. For example, I wrote a book (Dark Visitor) trying to recruit students not currently interested in the sciences to be science students. The postulated premiss of the book is related to the fact that Pluto was discovered in a systematic search for "Planet X" which was believed to exist in the 1920s because of observed perturbations in Neptune's orbit. It is now known that Pluto was not the cause (It is smaller than the moon and would need a mass several times that of Earth to have been responsible) In book I speculate that it could have been some "dark visitor" passing by the solar system, probably a small black hole. IF this BH were formed by a dying star in the early universe, it is likely that two gravitationally bound stars both formed BHs and the second could be approaching about now. (I was trying to scare the currently uninterested student to become a little interest in science and used this Pluto history in the effort.) If I am successful with only one student, and he/she turns out to do something important in science, then Pluto's existence could significantly change live on Earth in one generation! - Planet X has already done so - It caused Percival Lowell to fund the construction of the observatory at Flagstaff AZ that bears his name where Pluto was discovered.

I rarely describe my book here, but when I do, I make it a policy to tell how to read it for free - visit www.DarkVisitor.com to learn how and more about it, if interested.

Regarding the attachment in post #36:...this process of internally representing reality would have to be reducible to the physical brain. So for everything that happens in this internal fantasy would have a cooresponding neural process, and neural processes have to happen in such a way as to not violate physical laws. So even though you experience free will, the process that makes up this experience is entirely physical, ...

I agree with your comments entirely if you are a physical object as you seem to be asserting, but I am asserting that you are only an information process in a simulation, not a set of physical processes that must follow the physical laws. I think the simulate laws (logic) does indeed mirror the physical laws in most matters that concern the representation of the physical world, but need not do so in the representation of "YOU." "You" live/ exist only in the simulation and simulated world in my view. For example "pain" does not exist in the physical world. It need not follow physical laws. You can suffer it when there is nothing physically wrong or not have it when there is. An example of the later is common with war time injuries. An nurse giving a shot to a soldier, who had his entire arm torn off and did not report feeling pain, but he complained that she hurt him by her clumsy injection technique! Some people never feel pain and some times only discover that their body is being injured by vision etc. - they usually don't live long lives and fortunately are not very common. What you experience is not determined by or reducible to physics as you are suggesting. It is your own brain's mental creation. That is, I strongly disagree with the part of your text above I have made bold.

 

[moving finger]

I agree with your comments entirely if you are a physical object as you seem to be asserting, but I am asserting that you are only an information process in a simulation, not a set of physical processes that must follow the physical laws. I think the simulate laws (logic) does indeed mirror the physical laws in most matters that concern the representation of the physical world, but need not do so in the representation of "YOU."

Hi Billy T. Me again. For the avoidance of doubt, are you saying that the representation of “YOU” is determined by no laws at all (either “simulate laws” or “physical laws”)?

"You" live/ exist only in the simulation and simulated world in my view.

Plausible.

For example "pain" does not exist in the physical world. It need not follow physical laws.

Plausible. But are you then saying that pain “does not follow ANY laws”?

You can suffer it when there is nothing physically wrong or not have it when there is.

OK, are you suggesting there is no “cause” at all for this feeling of suffering?

An example of the later is common with war time injuries. An nurse giving a shot to a soldier, who had his entire arm torn off and did not report feeling pain, but he complained that she hurt him by her clumsy injection technique!

I hope you are not suggesting that there was “no cause at all” for the soldier’s feeling of pain?

Some people never feel pain and some times only discover that their body is being injured by vision etc. - they usually don't live long lives and fortunately are not very common.

Sorry, your point here is….?

What you experience is not determined by or reducible to physics as you are suggesting. It is your own brain's mental creation.

The key question, however, is “is it a creation from nothing, or is there in fact a cause”?

MF

 

[Billy T]

Hi Billy T. Me again. For the avoidance of doubt, are you saying that the representation of “YOU” is determined by no laws at all (either “simulate laws” or “physical laws”)?...

Most of your questions are really this one so I'll answer it only, except to admit that there was no thread related point in my observation that some people never feel pain. (I was just trying to make fact that pain is a mental construct, not tissue injury, etc. more strongly.)
No, "I" am law governed, but I am definitely saying "you" do not follow all the physical laws and neither does the "world 'you' live in" (for example, in the world "I" live in, the solar spectrum is essentially one octave wide and I only assume that far IR, radio waves etc. are real because of my instruments. - I don't directly experience them. - everything I believe about the physical world could just be a trick played on me by some very capable demon but he can't eradicate me, only deceive me. I know I exist and live in my {presumably brain constructed} world.) but of course the physical world (assuming it does in fact exist, as I do) follows all the physical laws, even if we do not know them all.

"Simulate laws" should have been "simulation laws" (dyslexia error or just careless) but even that is not really what I was trying to talk about.
"Simulation logic" would have been better and answer for this also "No." I believe that the subroutine (if that is what it is) that is "me" in my postulated "real time simulations" DOES follow regular procedures, which could (probably do) include some random elements.
How these random elements are produced, I don't know, but doubt that the UP of QM has anything to do with it, but as I can't think of any other truly random (woops, my bias towards the assumption to a non deterministic universe is showing - no offense - in fact admiration for your more rational and open position is admitted) mechanism.

The problem, as you well know from our discussion in the "What price free will" thread, is that I also want a "genuine agent" to sometimes exercise "genuine free will" in this subroutine, at least once or twice between birth and death
Unfortunately I have even less, if less than "none" is possible, ideas about how such agent could rigidly follow the simulation logic and yet not be either deterministic or random. I only hope that some logic, exists in what I once called a "middle ground" but no longer do as I have accepted you definitions and thus now locate this logic as a subregion of the non deterministic division of logic which certainly includes "random choice logic", discussed above, but I am not sure that only "random logic" can exist in this non deterministic subdivision of logical space. If there is any thing else, I bet self reflexive logic has something to do with it, but I am too ignorant of the field of logic theory to know if there is any subdivision of non deterministic logic of the nature my agent requires to exist. - We have been thru most of this before and I don't want to try to defend my views (hopes) - you will just beat me up again because I can't define what I am talking about.

I readily admit I am only dealing in hope, can't define either of my "genuines," except to give examples of what they are not. As stated before, the only reason I don't adopt your view 100% is that I can't prove that the necessary Non-random and Non-deterministic logic my "genuine agent" uses/ follows is nonsense / not a real possibility.

I like to stick the word "genuine" in as I often do to try to distinguish what I am saying from things people who start with the "fact" they have free will and then speak of agents etc. without being honest enough to admit that this is a very hard position to support. It is impossible to support, IMHO, if they think of themselves as existing in the physical world, where the laws of physics rule. These physical laws may allow them a "chance free will" illusion of "genuine free will" if the UP of QM is fundamental (your ontic), instead of only epistemic.

I am sure I prefer your concept of free will to that illusion as I think evolution has produced a much better decision making process that the UP of QM can. If the universe is deterministic, then even that undesired (my me) "chance free will" is not a possibility, backward in time causes are ok, etc. as the total story/history, including what we call the future, is already written. (Not only can your "MF" name sake, not be lured back to change the past, it can't do anything to change the future either.)

I think we agree on a lot of things including that I have only a currently logically indefensible hope, but one that currently neither of us can confidently squash. I am sure that I must give up the idea of being physical and living in the physical world etc., if I want to have my "genuine free will." That price I am willing to pay, as it alone, IMHO, keeps open the possibility that my "genuine FW is anything more that your simple, logically OK, consistent with a deterministic world (should that be the case) FW. My GFW is not consistent with a deterministic world, nor one ruled by QM's chance results.

If those are in fact my only choices in the "real world," :grumpy: I will continue to live in the one I think my brain has constructed, where GFW may be possible and only currently non demonstrable, because all aspects of logic theory may not be completely understood yet.

PS. After posting I noted your "representation of “YOU” .." This may be misleading. There is no "representation" of "me" in my real time simulation, It is "me." "I" am only information, nothing physical, but "I" at least, if no demon is deceiving me, have a special unique relationship to a particular human body in the physical world.

 

[LindaGarrette]

I've been reading this and similar threads for several days now. The arguments are very much like others I've come across numerous times. Most people are very confused about both the definitions and the philosophical interpretations of determinism and free will.

Determinism means predictability but it does not mean predeterminism. There is no supernatural entity with a plan. Even though every event is caused each event preceding a future event has to occur before the future happens.

The ultimate reality is maximum entropy. Until then, every event is part of the process. Our thoughts are causes of events. We are sensitive to events and that causes our thoughts to be directed.

If there were free will, we would be immune to natural causes and would lose the sensitivity that causes us to take the appropriate actions. Our actions cannot be a "first cause."

There is nothing scary about this at all. It just is and has to be. Also, there is no in between. There is no god of the gaps. Linda

 

[Tournesol]

If there were free will, we would be immune to natural causes and would lose the sensitivity that causes us to take the appropriate actions. Our actions cannot be a "first cause."

If there is no 100% strict determinism ITFP, there is no need for a miraculous ability to override physical laws in order to implement determinism.

 

[LindaGarrette]

If there is no 100% strict determinism ITFP, there is no need for a miraculous ability to override physical laws in order to implement determinism.

How do you know there is no "strict" determinism. Can you tell me about an event in space/time reality that is not caused?

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

I knew you were going to ask that.

Or has that joke already been done? Couldn't be arsed reading all 4 pages.

 

[Picklehead]

Quote:Can you tell me about an event in space/time reality that is not caused?

As for 'causeless' events (if there really are such things), atomic decay, the spontaneous existence and annihilation of pairs of virtual particles.

 

[LindaGarrette]

Quote:Can you tell me about an event in space/time reality that is not caused?

As for 'causeless' events (if there really are such things), atomic decay, the spontaneous existence and annihilation of pairs of virtual particles.

Those events do not exist in space/time and cannot be observed. You need to come up with a real example.

 

[Billy T]

To LindaGarrette:
In post 49 I agree with you when you say:
“Most people are very confused about both the definitions and the philosophical interpretations of determinism and free will. Determinism means predictability…”

Because your own statement is either simply wrong or an extreme example of this confusion! If you have, as you say, been reading this and related threads, you have failed to understand what Moving Finger has made very clear - Determinism is an ontic property, predictability is an epistemic property.

Determinism DOES NOT means predictability. Rather than show this by giving definitions, I will give a specific example. (One counter example is sufficient to prove “Determinism means predictability” is false and is quite possibly an example of your confusion.)

Suppose I write a good random number generator program for my battery powered computer, and seal it up in a box which has a 32 digit display of the new number generated in response to each button push. (This button and display obviously are available on outer surface of the box.) I then give it to you.

You can not predict the number that will be displayed prior to pushing the button, but surely you would agree that computers running fixed programs are deterministic. Thus, you statement is false or at best confused by not knowing what the words you use mean.

I want to remove any possibility that you could learn the details of the deterministic program before using it, so I tell a little more about my box and me:
The box will explode if opened or following the fifth button push. I died just after giving it to you. You (and every one assisting you) will surely fail to predict all of the first four deterministic displays produced by the first four button pushes. One example of unpredictability of a deterministic system is sufficient counter example to prove your statement wrong or confused.


I also find unintelligible your post 54 statement:
“Those events do not exist in space/time and cannot be observed. You need to come up with a real example.”

Pickelhead’s post 53 examples (atomic decay, the spontaneous existence and annihilation of pairs of virtual particles.), which you reference by “those events,” certainly occur in space and time. If not, I ask where do they occur or are denying that they exist?

The first (atomic decay) may be observed immediately when it happens by radiation detectors and often subsequently by the transformation of the decaying element. For example, in Beta decay when a negative charge leaves the nucleus, the atomic number of the element increases by one, and the chemistry of that atom becomes completely different. In some cases, perhaps even a single decay can be confirmed by sensitive physical chemistry, for example by repeated excitation and observation of the new line spectra from a low pressure gas discharge.

The experimentally observed Casimir effect is an observable consequence of the second, (vacuum polarization), which violates conservation of energy for such a brief time that this violation is consistent with the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics. The existence of the VP pair is of such a short duration that you may be correct in statement that it has never been observed directly. Another consequence of VP, widely accepted, but definitely not yet observed is Hawking radiation.

I will also make a “most people” statement:

Most people tend to agree with Pickelhead that these events are at least probably “uncaused” but one can not be sure. There could be “hidden variable” that mankind has yet to discover, operating in a completely deterministic to cause both of Pickelhead‘s examples, but currently (and forever if the UP of QM is true) epistemically indeterminate (unpredictable) fashion.

 

[Tournesol]

How do you know there is no "strict" determinism. Can you tell me about an event in space/time reality that is not caused?

Firstly , that was an 'if' statement. Secondly, look to QM.

 

[PIT2]

I was wondering if this statement is true:

"for someone to prove that determinism is true, he would have to 'break' the Uncertainty Principle"

(in other words, he would have to know the exact position and impulse of a particle at a certain time)

Can anyone tell me if this is correct?

 

[LindaGarrette]

To LindaGarrette:
In post 49 I agree with you when you say:
“Most people are very confused about both the definitions and the philosophical interpretations of determinism and free will. Determinism means predictability…”

Because your own statement is either simply wrong or an extreme example of this confusion! If you have, as you say, been reading this and related threads, you have failed to understand what Moving Finger has made very clear - Determinism is an ontic property, predictability is an epistemic property.

Determinism DOES NOT means predictability. Rather than show this by giving definitions, I will give a specific example. (One counter example is sufficient to prove “Determinism means predictability” is false and is quite possibly an example of your confusion.)

Suppose I write a good random number generator program for my battery powered computer, and seal it up in a box which has a 32 digit display of the new number generated in response to each button push. (This button and display obviously are available on outer surface of the box.) I then give it to you.

You can not predict the number that will be displayed prior to pushing the button, but surely you would agree that computers running fixed programs are deterministic. Thus, you statement is false or at best confused by not knowing what the words you use mean.

I want to remove any possibility that you could learn the details of the deterministic program before using it, so I tell a little more about my box and me:
The box will explode if opened or following the fifth button push. I died just after giving it to you. You (and every one assisting you) will surely fail to predict all of the first four deterministic displays produced by the first four button pushes. One example of unpredictability of a deterministic system is sufficient counter example to prove your statement wrong or confused.


I also find unintelligible your post 54 statement:
“Those events do not exist in space/time and cannot be observed. You need to come up with a real example.”

Pickelhead’s post 53 examples (atomic decay, the spontaneous existence and annihilation of pairs of virtual particles.), which you reference by “those events,” certainly occur in space and time. If not, I ask where do they occur or are denying that they exist?

The first (atomic decay) may be observed immediately when it happens by radiation detectors and often subsequently by the transformation of the decaying element. For example, in Beta decay when a negative charge leaves the nucleus, the atomic number of the element increases by one, and the chemistry of that atom becomes completely different. In some cases, perhaps even a single decay can be confirmed by sensitive physical chemistry, for example by repeated excitation and observation of the new line spectra from a low pressure gas discharge.

The experimentally observed Casimir effect is an observable consequence of the second, (vacuum polarization), which violates conservation of energy for such a brief time that this violation is consistent with the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics. The existence of the VP pair is of such a short duration that you may be correct in statement that it has never been observed directly. Another consequence of VP, widely accepted, but definitely not yet observed is Hawking radiation.

I will also make a “most people” statement:

Most people tend to agree with Pickelhead that these events are at least probably “uncaused” but one can not be sure. There could be “hidden variable” that mankind has yet to discover, operating in a completely deterministic to cause both of Pickelhead‘s examples, but currently (and forever if the UP of QM is true) epistemically indeterminate (unpredictable) fashion.

You are quoting me out of context and not paying attention to what I said.

Obviously, determinism means predictability, otherwise, scientific experiments would have random results.

I specifically excluded quantum effects. Space time calculations and observations have nothing in common with quantum interactions. You are confusing two unrelated issues.

 

[LindaGarrette]

I was wondering if this statement is true:

"for someone to prove that determinism is true, he would have to 'break' the Uncertainty Principle"

(in other words, he would have to know the exact position and impulse of a particle at a certain time)

Can anyone tell me if this is correct?

That is not correct. First of all, There is no adequate hypothesis to explain "uncertainty." There is a lot of conjecture. Second, even if there were uncertainty at the quantum level, any effect would be canceled out in space/time reality. These are two separate issues which should not be confused.

It is not necessary to prove determinism since it is part of the scientific method. To disprove it would require evidence of an uncaused event which as far as anyone knows, has not yet been presented.

 

[LindaGarrette]

Firstly , that was an 'if' statement. Secondly, look to QM.

QM does not effect space/time reality. They are two separate issues. Even so, there is no evidence that quantum events are not caused, only "uncertainty." (I don't mean the Heisenberg usage, here.)

 

[Tournesol]

Obviously, determinism means predictability, otherwise, scientific experiments would have random results..

Many do, in fact.

Space time calculations and observations have nothing in common with quantum interactions.

all quantum effets take place in space and time.

 

[Tournesol]

That is not correct. First of all, There is no adequate hypothesis to explain "uncertainty."

yes , observer effect.

There is a lot of conjecture. Second, even if there were uncertainty at the quantum level, any effect would be canceled out in space/time reality.

If you mean at the macroscopic level, that is false , as Schrodinger's cat is intended to demonstrate.

It is not necessary to prove determinism since it is part of the scientific method.

Nope , much science is merely statistical.

To disprove it would require evidence of an uncaused event which as far as anyone knows, has not yet been presented.

Events without fully deterministic causes have already been mentioned.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Tournesol, the observer effect is not the explanation for uncertainty. Uncertainty, in the form of commutation relations, is introduced as a basic feature of quantization.

 

[Tournesol]

Don't tell me, tell linda

 

[moving finger]

Determinism means predictability but it does not mean predeterminism. There is no supernatural entity with a plan. Even though every event is caused each event preceding a future event has to occur before the future happens.

I’m not sure that “predeterminism” necessarily implies a supernatural entity. To me, determinism and predeterminism are the same thing.

The ultimate reality is maximum entropy. Until then, every event is part of the process. Our thoughts are causes of events. We are sensitive to events and that causes our thoughts to be directed.

Maximum entropy might never be achieved. Entropy tends to increase, but this is a statistical law and not a prescriptive law.

As for 'causeless' events (if there really are such things), atomic decay, the spontaneous existence and annihilation of pairs of virtual particles.

The most we can say at this point in time is that we are not aware of any causation for these particular events – that does not mean they are truly uncaused.

Uncertainty, in the form of commutation relations, is introduced as a basic feature of quantization.

I disagree. I think the most we can conclude is that the commutation relations imply a degree of unpredictability. But unpredictability (a subjective perspective) is not the same as uncertainty (an objective property).

MF

 

[bomba923]

If determinism is true then no one is responsible for their actions. People who murder, rape or pillage are just as innocent as anyone else because they have no control over their own actions.
Personally I don't believe in determinism. At least not in the sense that all acts are predetermined. Now I do believe in another type of determinism. For example, it's been determined that we will have a free will and we have absolutely no control over that. So we have no free will to stop having free will.
Believing in determinism can be a bad thing. For one thing, if a person believes that everything is predetermined then a person could go out and do anything at all imaginable and not feel the least bit guilty about it. After all, it must have been predetermined right? In other words, it wasn't really their free choice to do whatever they did.
I personally don't believe that. I believe that people can genuinely choose how they will live out their lives.
Besides, I thought that with the discovery of quantum randomness indeterminism was the "in" thing.
Why would anyone believe in determinism? Didn't that go out with Newton's clockwork universe?

Read this

and you will see why determinism is indeed consistent with punishment!

Taken via definition

 

[octelcogopod]

Why not just look at this from a scientific point of view like we should everything else?
On the lowest level there may be complete determinism, as in the string or quantum level.
However that doesn't mean that all actions in the higher levels, like classical physics is completely determined by that.

The truth is we can never be free in a universe, ever.
We will always be guided by whatever rules are defined in that universe, either there is complete serenity with complete determinism, or there is complete chaos, of which in neither its inhabitants have any kind of free will.

By stating that the universe is either deterministic or random, or a mix, we are in fact comparing it to other universes.
Which is not possible, because we will never see other universes.
It's kind of like saying "this apple is either alok or hinde in color, however we have never seen either color, nor have we any idea what either color does, we just know that it must be either one of those."

When in fact the only sane thing we can say is "this apple has a color."
What I mean by this is that we can only say one thing in regards to the universe.. "It works this way."
It may seem redundant, but really, we have no idea how determinism or chaos works(in terms of the physical worl anyway.)
The only thing that can solve the free will problem is science, and one day when we can predict any event in the universe, we will truly know if we have the free will we some to long after. But then again, maybe we won't.

There is probably a finite amount of complexity to the universe, which means the most basic building block in the universe is close to nothing both in terms of matter and shape.
Such a block could not have any kind of random element, because it is the most basic thing that can exist in the universe.

 

[Human Being]

Obviously, determinism means predictability, otherwise, scientific experiments would have random results.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=determinism
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=predictability

As I see it, the definition of determinism does *NOT* imply predictability.

Reading what others have written in this thread, it makes perfect sense:
(1) determinism and predictability are mutually exclusive, and
(2) predictability requires observation; determinism does not.

You are confusing two unrelated issues.

And perhaps you are confusing two related issues?

 

[moving finger]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=determinism
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=predictability
As I see it, the definition of determinism does *NOT* imply predictability.

Correct.
It is often assumed that if something is deterministic then it follows that it is also predictable - but this is not the case.
Chaotic systems may be deterministic, but they are certainly not predictable.
For this reason, the absence of predictability cannot be used to infer indeterminism (this is the error that many fall into when studying quantum mechanics)

(1) determinism and predictability are mutually exclusive

Not quite. A system may be deterministic without being predictable (eg chaos), but a predictable system is by definition deterministic.
Thus, the set of predictable systems is a subset of the set of deterministic systems.

(2) predictability requires observation; determinism does not.

Agreed.
Another way of saying this is that predictability is an epistemic property; determinism is an ontic property.
MF

 

[Human Being]

(1) determinism and predictability are mutually exclusive

Not quite. A system may be deterministic without being predictable (eg chaos), but a predictable system is by definition deterministic.
Thus, the set of predictable systems is a subset of the set of deterministic systems.

Ugh, thanks for correcting my error!