Determinism

[InfiniteNow]

uhh... that parrot is blue.

 

He's periwinkle. :P

 

 

Actually, it's the result of a visual filter on the satellite. Here's a better shot:

 

[HappytheStripper]

I believe in strict determinism, that is, every event is the direct result of events before it. This means that all objects, including humans, are governed by cause and effect completely, with no free will. To me, it is the only logical conclusion when one thinks about our universe. However, I am aware that some people feel differently, and I'm curious as to how they logically defend Indeterminism.

 

The opposite to "determine" is "un-determined" .. the other side is in creationism .. which comes before any determination .. as determination happens in response to a stimuli or external circumstance .. creation comes first .. or event ..

 

Everything has an order or chain of events .. that which is not created is therefore left un-determined ..

 

Hope this clears up any mis-conception ..

 

Kind Regards

 

Ashely

[IDMclean]

Well...The biggest reason I believe in determinism is because of how I view time. I don't agree with the concepts of 'past', 'present', and 'future'. Rather, I believe that all time is equal, with the past, present, and future all 'co-existing'. The illusion of the passage of time is due to the fact that at any given 'present', it has only been affected by its 'past'. Imagine if all time 'stopped' at any particular 'present' - you'd never notice, because your thoughts would be completely frozen, electrical current wouldn't run, everything would be 'frozen'. If time then 'started' again, you'd not notice. Imagine if time ran 'backwards' - you wouldn't notice because at any given 'present' you would only have been affected by its 'past'.

 

I like what you say here but I have a Monkey wrench that is just itching to confuse that.

 

I purpose a system. We start out with all variables known. We know exact position of the system, it has no past and it starts in freeze frame. It is solid.

 

Now we start the system, and we measure the results of the system. We have our predictions of how the system should be playing out. At each measurement we are observing and therefore changing the outcome. Hence introducing variablity into the system.

 

We allow this system to progress, measured on and off for a day. now our system has a past. If we try to predict the past of the system with the data we have what do we get?

 

I'll give you a hint, in quantum physics time doesn't play fair, it is ambivilant regarding direction of progression through time.

[Kriminal99]

I am infinitely skeptical of claims that quantum mechanics contradicts determinism.

 

Someone explain something to me... how is anyone capable of understanding a non deterministic system. It seems to me that determinism goes hand in hand with the ability for a human being to understand, model and outline a system.

 

And if you claimed something was not deterministic just because you didn't understand the involved system your claim would of course be pure speculation. Could you imagine trying to recreate the occurence of a pool table full of pool balls when the only way you could gain any information was by smacking the balls with the cue and then gauging how the cue ball reacts or by similar methods. Then add lots more unknown factors like electromagnetic properties, and potentially ones you as of yet know nothing about since you are not able to more closely examine the pool balls to witness how they are affecting the situation. Imagine all the different wild claims someone might make to try and understand what was going on in this situation. Maybe one of the potential unknown factors affects the pool ball and it happens to be going the opposite direction of what it should be going given how it was hit so someone concludes that time is going backwards. And even if time was going backwards, that doesn't make it non deterministic, it just means that there is more than one meaning of time.

 

Its one of those situations where a million different people could have a million different things to say about whats really going on, so taking on authority that determinism is false based on the claims of scientists who all share the same biases is out of the question. But despite that it seems the possibility that determinism is false could ever be proved can be seen to be false without ever lifting a finger...

 

How is any nondeterminism claim not just an argument from ignorance?

 

P.S. For those of you speaking of the "randomness" of quantum mechanics, what is it exactly that you think random is? The outcome of rolling a pair of dice is completely deterministic. The laws of physics still apply. Its just no person can know all the factors involved and calculate what the outcome will be. The results are equally likely because a small amount of change in the input factors causes a large amount of variance in outcome.

 

And then there are people who say things like "QM is random in a way we can't even understand", well some people say the same thing about the stock market because its hard to predict using statistics. But statistics, and philisophical analysis of induction in general already provide explanations for this: You have to sample over the the entire population you are trying to predict for, and that includes the future even though it is impossible to sample from the future. Normally passage of time is not a signifigant factor in determining the outcome (whcih is why statistics isn't useless) but in the stock market it is... the past hundred years don't tell you how stocks will behave when an alien spaceship lands or the world trade center blows up. In philosophy its just called the generality problem of induction... how do you know an unknown factor isn't causing a different result then what you have seen in the past?

[IDMclean]

Well it all depends on your interpretation of QM. The many worlds view is the Deterministic interpretation. I however don't prescribe to that, as I have come to the conclusion that at each event cusp there comes a point where the particle "decides" which position it's going to take. In radiation this is something we can't predict, ?accurately?.

 

In my above illiteration what I am hinting at is that time is doesn't exactly seem to exsist, or at least not in any meaningful way. I have come to the conclusion based upon my previous conclusion that if you attempted to reverse the aforementioned process it wouldn't return to it's starting state. That is it has a probability that it will end up in the exact state, but due to Heisenberg Uncertainty you can't be sure.

 

Well I hope that expands one's sights, have fun! B)

[Pyrotex]

...How is any nondeterminism claim not just an argument from ignorance?... how do you know an unknown factor isn't causing a different result then what you have seen in the past?

The appeal to QM is a fair argument, though it may seem non-intuitive. There is another.

 

It used to be thought that the Universe HAD to be non-deterministic. There were theological arguments to this so as to allow God (and presumably Satan and other supernatural deities and semi-deities) to have complete freedom to intervene in Human affairs. It wasn't until Newton's "Principia" that the concept of a clock-work universe arose and took public opinion by storm. There was a lot of discussion about how to make "free will" and "supernatural intervention" credible in a deterministic universe, but that was left to theologians and philosophers, by and large.

 

Today, determinism is not taken seriously by scientists, and they brieath a sigh of relief that the clock-work universe paradigm is mostly gone. Determinism is not only philosophically unsettling, it also makes for a messy universe. They have something new to worry about and it goes by several names: Chaos Theory, The Butterfly Effect, Complexity Theory, Non-Linear Dynamics (NLD), and others.

 

NLD is the fusion of two observations: many of the most interesting phenomena in our world and our universe are described by equations that are non-linear, specifically, "differential equations". Everything from protein production and weather to the orbits of gravitional systems comprising 3 or more bodies.

 

NLD systems may be described by totally deterministic (non-random) differential equations with totally deterministic solutions, but to believe that the behavior of those systems is "predictable" with arbitrary accuracy is illusory. We have Chaos Theory today as an intense field of study -- with a lot of brilliant minds focused on it -- precisely because we now know that there are well-understood physical systems which are NOT arbitrarily predictable. This non-determinism is INHERENT in the system, NOT a product of human ignorance. This has been mathematically proven. Read:

"Chaos, Making a New Science", James Gleick

"Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos", Mitchell Waldrop

"Emergence: From Chaos to Order ", John Holland

"Exploring Complexity: An Introduction", Gregoire Nicolis, Ilya Prigogine

 

Prigogine, who died recently, made brilliant strides in proving the non-determinacy of Reality, and the non-reversability of Time, but his work is very mathematical--much of it is over my head.

[Pyrotex]

...Someone explain something to me... how is anyone capable of understanding a non deterministic system. It seems to me that determinism goes hand in hand with the ability for a human being to understand, model and outline a system....?

Remember those coffee table toys of yesteryear? The ones that had a dangling magnet on a pendulum. Below the dangling magnet was a base that typically contained 3 or 4 magnets that "opposed" the dangling magnet. And in the center was an attracting electro-magnet, run on batteries, that would flick "on" once a second, the "activating magnet" that kept the pendulum swinging continuously.

 

Remember them? You turned it on. You flicked the pendulum. It swung one way then the other, sometimes N-S, sometimes E-W, or in between, but with NO REGULARITY. Many people thought the activating magnet ran on a random schedule but it did NOT. It was as regular as clockwork. And the equation of motion of the toy, though a bit complex because of having so many magnets, was straight-forward and absolutely understood.

 

The motion of the pendulum could not be predicted for more than a few seconds, even by the fastest super-computer. Could not and can not. This toy is a "chaotic system" under the control of "non-linear dynamic" equations. It is the non-linear nature of the equations themselves that make it non-predictable.

 

If you wish, I will send you a spreadsheet that contains a simple equation: V[n+1] = R * V[n] * (1 - V[n])

 

V is always between 0 and 1. R goes from 1 to 4. The spreadsheet takes the initial V, called V[0] and plugs it in to produce V[1]. Then V[1] is plugged in to produce V[2], etc. all the way up to V[1000].

 

Then I plot the values for you. Easy. R is increased in teensy tiny stages. Somewhere around R=3.4, something awesome, terrible, frightening, inexplicable, and mind-shattering happens.

 

You find yourself staring straight into the heart of raw CHAOS itself!!!

:)

[Kriminal99]

Well I don't see any reason to attribute some people's need for things like free will and theological intervention to anything other than people's desire for them to be true. It's obvious free will is limited if its there at all... you do what you want, but you don't control what you want. In fact it is controlled deterministicly.

 

Anyways, randomness is just the product of high variance factors... Lets limit our discussion to something where we are pretty sure we understand all the factors: A simple die. So if I roll it and a number comes out, is it completely deterministic or not? (Obviously I think so) Which result is indicitave of any of these theories your refer to that contradict determinism?

 

If it lands on the ceiling? How would this simply not be the result of unkown factors? Maybe an alien spaceship overhead interacted with particles that make up the particles that we are capable of theorizing regarding which are too small for us to have any evidence of the existence of whatsoever.

 

If you don't understand whats causing somethings behavior, you simply don't understand it. Its not nondeterministic...

 

A magnetic pendulum? Did anyone do a full mathematical model of the pendulum with the pendulum approaching at an infinite number of angles with all involved forces affecting the system, including any ones that we may not be aware of to prove that it isn't deterministic? Oh wait thats impossible isn't it?

 

How do you prove non determinism. How can you prove that there is not a non deterministic force which you are un aware of affecting any given system.

 

Also what is the strict definition of determinism you are using? Is it past events causing future events? Cause that would at least explain to me how the concept of non determinism is not self defeating...

[Pyrotex]

...A magnetic pendulum? Did anyone do a full mathematical model of the pendulum with the pendulum approaching at an infinite number of angles...including any ones that we may not be aware...

Dealing with an infinite number of angles is not necessary. That is not how analysis is performed. I can give you an equation, y = x + 3. I can tell you all about that equation's behavior from minus infinity to plus infinity. I do not need to calculate every one of its infinite points.

 

What do you mean, "forces that we may not be aware of"? I dare say, you do not understand "forces". Or perhaps you believe in poltergeists. I am aware of all possible forces, but of course, I have an advanced education. That is a considerable advantage in discussions like this. Sorry you don't appreciate that.

 

Sorry for being a bit sarcastic. Sometimes I get impatient. We are, after all, discussing Physics, Mechanics, technical subjects that are open to an incredible degree of understanding -- by those who are willing. Perhaps I should just leave you alone. You're having fun fiddling with your "determinism" and who am I to rain on your little parade. Go in peace.

[Pyrotex]

...You find yourself staring straight into the heart of raw CHAOS itself!!! :hihi:

Okay. Nobody asked, so I am tempted to conclude that you guys don't REALLY want proof that Determinism is only a "local" phenomenon.

 

But, I'm gonna post this spreadsheet anyway. Warning. Opening this spreadsheet and following the instructions can lead to brain damage, or even having your assumptions challenged. Not for the weak of heart. :hihi:

[coberst]

Causality is a concept argued over by many very important philosophers.

 

Cause is a determining factor in a situation. A prototypical causation is when a force is applied to something thereby moving it. Causes are temporaly prior. Causes are sources of events. Cause is the agent of event. We conceptualize causes in terms of locations and in terms of objects. Motion in space is fundamental to all creatures and this is our source of much of our experiential knowledge. Cause is force and causation is forced movement.

 

A critically self-conscious individual has a very different attitude toward the world and the self than does the non-critical thinking individual.

 

In our everyday experiences we encounter numerous ideas regarding causation.

Domino: Start a proper first change and like dominos others will follow.

Thresholds: A barrier must be overcome. Once that initial hurdle is carried then change will occur.

Plate tectonic: The change takes much time because of the vast inertia that must be overcome.

Path: The path taken determines the events caused. Some might argue that Iraq has been “set on the path’ to democracy. Being on the path means that eventually the goal will be reached.

 

These are causal models with a different logic for each. “In domino logic, but not in causal path logic, the change is stopped by the application of force. In domino logic, a change is to be prevented. In plate tectonic logic, a change is to be effected. In domino logic, just enough force is necessary to keep the domino from falling. In causal-path logic, just a little push now and then is necessary. But, in plate tectonic logic, a huge amount of force is necessary over a long time.” Quotes from “Philosophy in the Flesh”.

 

There are philosophical widespread views.

 

Causes are:material substance—forms—purposes—applications of force—necessary conditions—temporally prior to effects—laws of nature—uniformities of nature—correlations (constant conjunctions).

 

“At the heart of causation is its most fundamental case: the manipulation of objects by force…It is conscious volitional human agency via direct physical force that is at the center of our concept of causation.”

 

Our fundamental understanding of events are in terms of locations and in terms of objects. Fundamentally we “conceptualize events and all aspects of them—actions, causes, changes, states, purposes, and so forth—in terms of our extensive experience with, and knowledge about, motion in space.”

 

Location: Causation Is The Forced Movement O An Entity (The Affected Entity) To A New Location (The Effect)

 

Figure = Affected Entity

Ground = Effect

Example: “The homerun sent the crowd (Figure) into a frenzy (Ground).”

 

Object: Causation Is The Transfer Of A Possible Object (The Effect) To Or From An Entity (The Affected Entity).

 

Figure = Effect

Ground = Affected Entity

Example: “The loud music gave a headache (Figure) to each of the guests (Ground).”

 

From the position of the advertiser what is the purpose of a TV show?—Sell merchandise to audience.

From the position of the entertainment producer what is the purpose of the TV show?—Sell entertainment package to advertiser.

From the position of the audience what is the purpose of the TV show?—Entertainment

 

The TV show caused the audience to buy the object advertised.

 

What is the cause of a TV show?

[Pyrotex]

Causality is a concept argued over by many very important philosophers. Cause is a determining factor in a situation. ...What is the cause of a TV show?

Yes, and philosophers have said other things about causality. For example:

 

"Causality" is a word, or concept, existing in the human mind. It is a concept that we humans have invented in an attempt to explain and understand the universe. The universe does not understand "causality". The universe does not "cause" things to happen. The universe simply does what it does. When we observe in the universe that X always precedes Y, we say that X causes Y. Then we look for evidence and we often find it. If this relationship holds true in all cases, we say, There is a Law that X always causes Y.

 

It is OUR explanation. It is OUR law. It is OUR understanding.

 

But Ol' Man River, she just keeps movin' along...:P

[Kriminal99]

Dealing with an infinite number of angles is not necessary. That is not how analysis is performed. I can give you an equation, y = x + 3. I can tell you all about that equation's behavior from minus infinity to plus infinity. I do not need to calculate every one of its infinite points.

 

What do you mean, "forces that we may not be aware of"? I dare say, you do not understand "forces". Or perhaps you believe in poltergeists. I am aware of all possible forces, but of course, I have an advanced education. That is a considerable advantage in discussions like this. Sorry you don't appreciate that.

 

Sorry for being a bit sarcastic. Sometimes I get impatient. We are, after all, discussing Physics, Mechanics, technical subjects that are open to an incredible degree of understanding -- by those who are willing. Perhaps I should just leave you alone. You're having fun fiddling with your "determinism" and who am I to rain on your little parade. Go in peace.

 

Forces we might not be aware of is what makes analysis incapable of being an authoritative source. When a magnet behaves according to a formula which incorporates all known factors it is understood. When it does not adhere to any formula we can find that does not make it non deterministic. It means we don't know the formula.

 

That you know how the formula works from negative infinity to positive infinity is dependent on the fact that all numbers are alike in every way necessary to the results of performing mathematical functions on them.

 

The physical world involves more than numbers. It involves more than concepts which are alike in every way necessary to predict everything. If you take half of a number what do you get? That number times .5. It doesn't matter what number. If you take half of a basketball, how many basketballs do you get? Zero, because a basketball is not a slab of rubber. Can you tell that from mathematics? No. When you understand the physics of air pressure, this is obviously deterministic. But if you didn't (say you are a caveman) and you tried to cut a bball or baloon in half what do you say? OMG CHAOS!!! ? Not I. I say deterministic where I do not know the factors.

 

If you want to model the movement of a magnet bouncing around using a continuous formula, you have to know all the factors. An unkown force is simply a factor you are not aware of and that your formula does not account for.

[Erasmus00]

I am infinitely skeptical of claims that quantum mechanics contradicts determinism.

 

Then learn the theory and see for youserself.

 

Someone explain something to me... how is anyone capable of understanding a non deterministic system. It seems to me that determinism goes hand in hand with the ability for a human being to understand, model and outline a system.

 

Quantum mechanics is probabilistic, which means it its core it cannot be completely deterministic. In a deterministic theory, I can completely determine the evolution of the system if I know the initial conditions completely. (However, in practice even deterministic systems can become chaotic and unpredictable.)

 

Its one of those situations where a million different people could have a million different things to say about whats really going on, so taking on authority that determinism is false based on the claims of scientists who all share the same biases is out of the question.

 

So spend some time learning the theory. There are several good books available and I think picking up little knowledge never hurt anyone.

 

How is any nondeterminism claim not just an argument from ignorance?

 

There is a set of inequalities, produced by Bell and experimentally verified by Aspect, and others that test what are called "hidden variables." The question is can we test if quantum mechanics is only statistical because we don't have all the information available (i.e., the theory isn't complete)?

 

Bell managed to show that quantum mechanics is at odds with local hidden variables. I.e., no local deterministic model could produce the statistical behavior associated with actual particles.

 

Consider the following: if we take polarized light and send it through a polarizer tilted at 45 degrees to the verticle we cut the intensity of the light by half. This makes sense if we think of the light as a wave.

 

But Einstein's seminal paper on the photoelectric effect demonstrated that light should also be described in terms of photons. So now we think of our light as a series of photons.

 

We know that only half of the photons can go through the 45 polarizer, this is what it means for the intensity to be cut by half. So, the question is, how do we determine which photons go though the polarizer and which don't? We can't: we have to say that 50% of the photons will go through the polarizer and our theory has lost strict determinism.

-Will

[Kriminal99]

Then learn the theory and see for youserself.

 

Quantum mechanics is probabilistic, which means it its core it cannot be completely deterministic. In a deterministic theory, I can completely determine the evolution of the system if I know the initial conditions completely. (However, in practice even deterministic systems can become chaotic and unpredictable.)

 

So spend some time learning the theory. There are several good books available and I think picking up little knowledge never hurt anyone.

 

There is a set of inequalities, produced by Bell and experimentally verified by Aspect, and others that test what are called "hidden variables." The question is can we test if quantum mechanics is only statistical because we don't have all the information available (i.e., the theory isn't complete)?

 

Bell managed to show that quantum mechanics is at odds with local hidden variables. I.e., no local deterministic model could produce the statistical behavior associated with actual particles.

 

Consider the following: if we take polarized light and send it through a polarizer tilted at 45 degrees to the verticle we cut the intensity of the light by half. This makes sense if we think of the light as a wave.

 

But Einstein's seminal paper on the photoelectric effect demonstrated that light should also be described in terms of photons. So now we think of our light as a series of photons.

 

We know that only half of the photons can go through the 45 polarizer, this is what it means for the intensity to be cut by half. So, the question is, how do we determine which photons go though the polarizer and which don't? We can't: we have to say that 50% of the photons will go through the polarizer and our theory has lost strict determinism.

-Will

 

In my experience someone saying "go read x" it is not a good sign that they understand the theory well enough to know that it contradicts my claims and how... other wise they could argue against what I say. Therefore someone telling me to read x is not a good reason to spend my time reading x. Although it is not the only thing you say...

 

What do you mean qm is probabilistic not deterministic? That makes no sense to me. Probability is used to describe a deterministic system when we could not possibly comprehend and compute all the factors. For instance when you roll dice it is deterministic, but who can calculate the effects of all the different factors such as positioning before being rolled, all the relevant forces, the shape and physical properties of the ground the dice lands on etc? You could also add an unknown factor such as giving the dice a magnetic core but leaving it balanced, perhaps even the same weight. This unknown factor would also effect the outcome. Perhaps you could also make the dice display its numbers electronically, and attach a directed signal sending device to a persons head so that when they looked at the dice it changed the arrangement of the numbers on its face. All of these things are not mutually exclusive with determinism. So how is a quantum situation different from this?

 

So by determinism related to the photons you mean that because we do not know what determines which photons go where it is not deterministic? Is this to say any system in which we do not know the involved factors is non deterministic, even if later we learn the factors? If you are claiming that noone can ever know the factors and if so what do you mean? Is this to say the factors are inherently unknowable or simply that our current methods do not allow us to know? How can you know something is unknowable?

 

There is a problem with what you claim that bell has proven. The problem is his methods no doubt depended on statistics. And our statistical methods depend on assumptions. Assumptions which we usually hold to be correct, but are entirely capable of being incorrect. Especially in any situation which is different than our previous experience with statistics are they capable of being incorrect. Without these assumptions we can say nothing about about what is going on. Therefore you cannot prove that no local hidden variables are affecting the income.

 

The simplest of these assumtions is that we have sampled from the entire population we wish to predict the behavior of. When time is an important factor in the equation, we can say nothing about the situation - we cannot sample from the future! Example: The stock market. You cannot look at the past and predict the behavior of the stock market. What the stock market does the past 10 years tells you little about what the stock market will do next year. This is not to say the system is not deterministic- You can create the same situation with a dice. Imagine you lived your lifetime in the space of time between when the dice was tossed and when it hit the ground. Your lifetime of experience would tell you that the dice tumbles through the air. Then one day BAM it hits the ground and you have no idea what is going on. Your past experience tells you nothing about the future. Statistics is not useful for predicting this would happen.

[Pyrotex]

In my experience someone saying "go read x" it is not a good sign that they understand the theory well enough to know that it contradicts my claims and how... other wise they could argue against what I say. Therefore someone telling me to read x is not a good reason to spend my time reading x. ....

On the other hand, an unwillingness to "go read x" may simply hide an inability to read. Or a lack of true desire to understand. Many people would just prefer to fiddle with their arguments like they fiddle with their dandruff. It gives them something to do. :lol:

[Erasmus00]

In my experience someone saying "go read x" it is not a good sign that they understand the theory well enough to know that it contradicts my claims and how... other wise they could argue against what I say. Therefore someone telling me to read x is not a good reason to spend my time reading x. Although it is not the only thing you say...

 

I was simply pointing out that statements like "I can't see how this can possibly be true" are silly. Why not pick up a book and learn? How can you direct any sensible argument against a theory you know virtually nothing about?

 

You want to say everything is deterministic, there is a vast body of literature that contradicts your claims (and at the same time it puts forward the most successful scientific theory ever). Rather then read any of this, you simply say "nope, can't be true."

 

What do you mean qm is probabilistic not deterministic? That makes no sense to me. Probability is used to describe a deterministic system when we could not possibly comprehend and compute all the factors.

 

Probability CAN be used to describe a deterministic system. It can also be used to describe a system that is purely probabilistic with no completely deterministic understructure. In your dice example, the underlying physics is completely classical, completely deterministic.

 

So by determinism related to the photons you mean that because we do not know what determines which photons go where it is not deterministic?

 

I'm suggesting that classically we know everything about the incoming radiation, but when we attempt to quantize we find we are limited to predictions of probability. This is not to be a deffinitive proof but to give you an example of the type of probabilities that emerge in quantum mechanics. On a side note: Bell's inequalities suggest that perhaps there is nothing else to know about the photon.

 

There is a problem with what you claim that bell has proven. The problem is his methods no doubt depended on statistics....

 

My emphasis added. You again assume with no research that Bell's result depends on a mistake, a flaw in his statistical reasoning. I suggest reading through a proof of Bell's theroem before making sweeping statements. It seems as if you believe you know more about statistics then Bell and the physicists who accept his proof.

 

I assert once more that Bell showed that quantum mechanics is inconsistent with the idea of local hidden variables. If quantum mechanics is correct (and experiment has born it out) we have to give up traditional local determinism.

-Will