Determinism

[ughaibu]

Infinite systems are unmeasurable, in some manner, so can not be fully defined, accordingly there is no set of conditions in any real sense.

[infamous]

Infinite systems are unmeasurable, in some manner, so can not be fully defined, accordingly there is no set of conditions in any real sense.

I must respectfully disagree; Pour gasoline on a rag and light it with a match....................What happens? Same for quantum reactions, why must we insist that they are infinite by nature. Let's just assume we limit the amount of information to, say 10^10 bits of information. I think we can more often than not predict the outcome of the experiment.........That is why I believe in determinism. Predictablility is the proof in the pudding, so to speak, and given enough information we can predict the results. Just because our predictions don't work sometimes doesn't mean it was a random event. We just didn't have all the information available...................Infy

[ughaibu]

The point that I'm trying to make is that if any element of the "set of conditions" is infinite, then there is no "all the information". I therefore assume that determinism relies on the assumption that all elements of reality are finite.

[infamous]

The point that I'm trying to make is that if any element of the "set of conditions" is infinite, then there is no "all the information". I therefore assume that determinism relies on the assumption that all elements of reality are finite.

But frankly that's like saying that just because we accept the notion of infinity, we must accept randomness. With all due respect, just because infinity, as a concept, is recognized doesn't give one the authority to position themselves on the steps of randomness. If that were the case, one could create a viable explanation for any action in nature as being a random act, and that would include the gasoline soaked rag I spoke of earlier. I think NOT................Infy

[ughaibu]

Lack of determinism doesn't necessarilly imply randomness, those are polarised extreme positions.

[infamous]

Lack of determinism doesn't necessarilly imply randomness, those are polarised extreme positions.

If an event is not the result of former conditions, how then would you characterize it if not random? I think it is plain as the nose on your face that if one does not believe in determinism the only other choice is some form of randomness. Maybe you can enlighten me on this position?......................Infy

[ughaibu]

Determinism is an absolute position, it claims that all events, past, present and future, interact in an inevitable way, they are strictly determined. Naturally our experience of the world strongly suggests that it has a degree of determinability but that observation is not sufficient to conclude that reality is a determistic system. I have not suggested that "an event is not the result of former conditions", I have suggested that determinism relies on an assumption that reality has a fully finite nature, that allows for the "set of conditions" to be complete.

[infamous]

Determinism is an absolute position, it claims that all events, past, present and future, interact in an inevitable way, they are strictly determined. Naturally our experience of the world strongly suggests that it has a degree of determinability but that observation is not sufficient to conclude that reality is a determistic system. I have not suggested that "an event is not the result of former conditions", I have suggested that determinism relies on an assumption that reality has a fully finite nature, that allows for the "set of conditions" to be complete.

OK, let's take my former illustration of lighting a gasoline soaked rag with a match. In the surrounding enviornment, there are an infinite number of circumstances which may or may not effect the results we can expect. For example; If I'm whistling a tune at the same time I light the match, it should and will have absolutely no affect on the results. However, if it begins a heavy rain it may put out the fire. Your point about an infinite set of circumstances is a valid one, however, not all of those circumstances will have an effect on the outcome of the event. Sooooooo, keeping this in mind, infinity is a difficult thing to keep under foot and much less understood. Taking all these things into account, we might surmize that it would be very difficult to prove any event in nature to truly have an infinite number of conditions that could effect the outcome, even in the quantum world?.................Infy

[ughaibu]

I think you might be misunderstanding the idea of determinism. The determinist believes that the rain, in your example, was as inevitable as the flame, they believe that every detail of shape and heat of the flame is fully and untransmutably determined and has been for billions of years, they believe that your every thought and action is determined, and again, that all those thoughts and actions have been inevitable for billions of years. So the fact that applying a match to a petrol-soaked rag is a reliable way to start a fire doesn't really have much to do with it, it's only indicative of a species of cause and effect phenomena that are suggestive of the possibility of determinism.

Anyway, I'm not sure about your present position, do I take it to be that you call yourself a determinist, allow that infinite elements in nature present a problem but suggest that such elements are difficult to prove? If so, does this mean that a sufficient proof of infinite elements would refute determinism?

[infamous]

Anyway, I'm not sure about your present position, do I take it to be that you call yourself a determinist,

Yes, I confess to being a determinist but, with a few reservations.

 

allow that infinite elements in nature present a problem but suggest that such elements are difficult to prove?

Not only difficult to prove but never are all these infinite elements effective in determining the outcome.

 

If so, does this mean that a sufficient proof of infinite elements would refute determinism?

No, because even if we could prove an infinite set of elements, not all these elements will have an effect on the outcome of the event. This is why I don't believe in randomness. Even though an infinite set of stimuli exist, not all will effect the event. For randomness to hold, there must be an infinite number of conditions contributing to the outcome so that an infinite number of results could possibly result. I contend that; Not all conditions effect the outcome but the outcome will be controlled by former events. This is my definition of Determinism, it may not fit the general mold. I resist randomness because IMHO, no event just happens with cause.........................Infy

[ughaibu]

Okay, thanks for explaining your stance. Your definition varies from the general in an important point, in determinism there are no factors that are unconnected to any event, in your example, your whistling is as necessary and unavoidable as is the rain. For example, you might decide to go outside and set fire to the rag but before leaving the house there's an eathquake which locks you in, your eventual action will be different from your intention but it will still have been the determined action. It's easy to see how this extends to solar flares and from this to cosmological events that encompass the entire universe. So, classically, there are no local events in a deterministic reality. In your model, how do you maintain deterministic inevitability in a localised environment, what is the nature of your environment's boundaries?

[infamous]

In your model, how do you maintain deterministic inevitability in a localised environment, what is the nature of your environment's boundaries?

This is where my model gets somewhat esoteric. Let me try explaining by saying that our choices change things. On the physical level, determinism is cast in stone. When the will of man is brought into the picture, the choices our mind makes changes things. This is, to be fair, outside the scope of empirical science so I hesitate to bring it up in this forum. However, the topic of this thread is, never-the-less, 'Determinism' and if you are really interested in the total conceptualization I'm speaking of, I must stray outside the lines. Having said that, If you care to delve into this, maybe we should correspond by the Private Message vehicle? If you so choose, send me a private message and I'll get back with you....................Infy

[IDMclean]

Interesting Infy. some questions for you. Is this unqiue to man or is does it stem from something else, can this property of Det.ism be contained within something that is not man, if so how?

[infamous]

Interesting Infy. some questions for you. Is this unqiue to man or is does it stem from something else, can this property of Det.ism be contained within something that is not man, if so how?

To honestly answer those questions KAC I would be touching on Theology and as I'm sure you are already aware, we have a Theology forum. As a Moderator, I'm expected to set the example by insisting that people stay on topic and when making claims, empirical evidence should be supplied as supporting material. In this case, I have no scientific evidence so to be true to my position here at Hypography, I can't elaborate in this particular thread. Suffice it to say that I suspect that consciousness has the power to change events. As for my taking this to the Theology forum, I find those that refuse to accept faith as a value to human existence will come demanding proof there also. As a result, I have made a habit of not posting in that forum just to save myself the aggrevation. If you wish to continue this line of Theological study, please PM me. I'll be happy to correspond with you thru that medium....................Infy

[IDMclean]

I'm not talking Theology. I'm once again talking hard cold scientific theory. My personal veiw is such that I suspect that Particles have something of a "choice". it's terribly inaccurate and doesn't conveay exactly what I want it to, but suffice it to say that if we bring something like Information theory into it, where particles carry information, then this whole universe could be a collection of Consent amongst the particles...

 

It moves towards and perhaps over the boundries of Science, ParaScience, Psuedo-Science and into the realms of Philosophy and Theology. I can only hope that someday I will abolish those boundries, as I see them like the boundries of countries, well defined and defended only because people believe in their nessessity. The earth is solid, the national border is not.

[ughaibu]

Infamous: I'd be interested to hear the details, as you are the only determinist, so far, to have responded to the point about infinity. This is a request for clarification of your view, so the responsibility is mine. How the faith element relates to the whole won't be clear until you explain, so please go ahead.

[infamous]

Infamous: I'd be interested to hear the details, as you are the only determinist, so far, to have responded to the point about infinity. This is a request for clarification of your view, so the responsibility is mine. How the faith element relates to the whole won't be clear until you explain, so please go ahead.

My comments are not your responsibility ughaibu. Please PM me if you want to discuss this point of Theology.........Infy