Determinism

[ughaibu]

Determinism is a philosophical position, it is considered to be possibly undecideable so I dont expect that anyone will be demanding proof, defendable arguments would meet the case. If you dont feel that you have defendable arguments and your position is based entirely on speculation, please say so.

[infamous]

Determinism is a philosophical position, it is considered to be possibly undecideable so I dont expect that anyone will be demanding proof, defendable arguments would meet the case. If you dont feel that you have defendable arguments and your position is based entirely on speculation, please say so.

I have sent you a PM ughaibu, please respond to it after you have had a chance to read it........................Infy

[Pyrotex]

Determinism can be broken down to this simple concept: Any action in nature can be explained as being subject to the previous set of conditions. IMHO, as we learn more about the quantum world, we will come to understand that this also holds true even in areas we now view as random events...........Infy

Again, we must put the word "determinism" under a linguistic microscope. I strongly suspect that there are folks here who are vigorously waving the det. flag and have NOT inquired deeply into what exactly they MEAN by it.

 

For sake of argument (QM set aside for the nonce), let us assume that ALL physical actions are "deterministic". That is, we accept Infy's definition above. Examples: F=mA, E=mc^2, Energy = Integral{ m*V } dV, etc. With these, we successfully predict well defined experimental set-ups. Life is good.

 

But Reality's Future is determined in the main by Iterative processes:

 

Assume at a given point/mass/time we have time-dependent velocities, V(t), time-dependent forces, F(t), time-dependent masses, M(t), and changes thereof, F'(t), M'(t). Time starts at t=n. We are interested in future velocity. So:

 

V[n+1] = Function{ V[n](t), F[n](t), M[n](t), F'[n](t), M'[n](t) }

 

or simply, V[n+1] = Fcn{ V[n] }

 

The size of our time step is arbitrarily small. To achieve perfect accuracy, whatever the hell that is, we must assume the time step is Planck Time, somewhere around 10^(-40) second, I'll look it up later.

 

If anywhere in that Fcn is an exponent <> 1 or a what is called a "differential equation", then our Fcn is "non-linear". Plots of how the state changes over time will be NOT straight lines. Such plots over large numbers of steps are called "phase space plots", the axes may be velocity, energy, et al. (but not time).

 

If the Fcn is non-linear, the plots will almost be cyclical, like the famous Butterfly Affect plot (which is related to predicting the weather). These plots can ONLY be made by doing each and every one of the iterations, 10^40 points in phase space per second (or whatever the inverse time step chosen).

 

You cannot say, I know the state at time zero, therefore I will calculate the state at time 1 second (day, whatever). No, there IS NO way to calculate that in one step. You MUST run through all steps one at a time.

 

You could argue, well, each step is deterministic (correct) therefore the accumulation over large time periods must be deterministic, QED (incorrect). Reason? The Universe runs NOT on F=mA and other Linear Laws, but on vast, vast arrays of Iterative processes.

 

At this point, I must grin a big grin. I can't take you any further with algebra or logic and you cannot follow if all you have is a Newtonian understanding of natural Law. Here we step into the new frontier of Chaos Science, Non-Linear Physics. If you won't read "Chaos" by James Gleick, then we may not be able to have a meaningful discussion past this point. Sayonara, baby.

 

Amazon.com: Chaos: Making a New Science: Books: James Gleick http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0140092501/qid=1149863663/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-5441986-9917502?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

 

The equations may be deterministic (from n to n+1). The outcomes are inherently unpredictable (over n+m where m is very large). Before you respond, you must show me that you understand the difference between "deterministic" and "predictable" (even if I grant you infinite knowledge of the original state).

 

PS: In cybernetics, the science of information, it has been mathematically proven that "information" is equivalent to "entropy". Infinite knowledge means infinite entropy, which means infinite temperature. We do not observe that the universe is at infinite temperature. Therefore, it makes no sense to speak of "infinite knowledge" since if it did exist (even in principle), our Universe could not exist.

[ughaibu]

Thanks to Infamous for explaining his ideas privately and for granting me permission to use those ideas on this thread.

The ideas are somewhat complicated and involve several questions tangential to the matter of whether or not a deterministic reality can exist in an environment including infinite elements. However, for the strictly deterministic component of Infamous' model, the set of conditions is assumed to be fully finite. This is not to say that it is required that it be fully finite, just that there is no provision for infinite elements. So, at this point, I'm still interested by the possibility of a deterministic view of reality that can accomodate infinite elements, if somebody can offer one.

[Jehu]

If one argues from a strictly deductive position, and if one accepts the existence of a “universal law of causality”, and if such a law is, by the very definition of a law, invariable, then a purely deterministic reality is the only valid conclusion at which one can logically arrive. On the other hand, if one argues from an purely inductive position, and accepts the same set of conditions, then clearly one must necessarily infer that there are non-deterministic elements within that reality, for we may observe innumerable instances where people appear to act under the guidance of their own will. Now, some might argue that this is merely an appearance, and rightfully so. However, why is it that in a wholly deterministic reality, there can be even the illusion of free will? A more important question, in my opinion, is why these two forms of reasoning bring us to opposites conclusions, or are they perhaps, “complementary” conclusions. By this I mean, is there some way to reconcile these two contradictory conclusions so as to avoid the obvious logical absurdity, or must we simply accept that we shall never have a tenable answer? Perhaps we might approach the problem from a slightly different angle, by examining precisely what we mean by a causal process. What is the nature of this process? Is this process regressive or non-regressive? Or, as has already been raised, is it finite or infinite, for it is difficult to see how an indeterminate sequence of events can be said to be determinate.

[Pyrotex]

...By this I mean, is there some way to reconcile these two contradictory conclusions so as to avoid the obvious logical absurdity, or must we simply accept that we shall never have a tenable answer?....

I have modestly suggested just such a reconciliation. There exists a "class" of deterministic universe (Deterministic Universe of the Second Kind) that is inherently indistinguishable from a truly non-deterministic universe -- and we live in one.

 

Such a "class" of deterministic universe would have to have the property that even having unlimited knowledge of its fully deterministic laws would IN NO WAY permit unbounded predictions of accuracy within that universe. This unpredictability would be inherent and unavoidable.

 

In a Deterministic Universe (of the First Kind) we could have two identical copies of the universe and have them "execute" independently of each other -- and over aeons of time demonstrate that they are still identical.

 

Whereas modern science is just now beginning to grasp that even in small, limited subsets of our universe, performing the above "experiment" would eventually lead to the two copies becoming increasingly divergent.

 

For example, gravitational mechanics is deterministic. Period. Given our knowledge of the current states of the planets, we can predict where they will be with total confidence -- out to maybe a million years; or where they used to be -- back maybe a million years. Beyond that, the ever-increasing, exponentially increasing, compound-interest increasing effects of countless asteroids, comets, other stars, distant clumps of dust, radiation pressure, outgassing, tidal forces, energy exchange in "resonance configurations" and a myriad of other sources, rapidly "fogs out" any conceivable ability to calculate.

 

This is the lesson of modern Chaos Theory: the faster-than-exponential increase of perturbations, "the fog", increases faster than any conceivable, possible calculation, even given god-like powers.

 

We can agree (if we choose) that our universe is deterministic in the sense that the Laws are inviolable. But this DOES NOT lead to the conclusion that the behavior of the universe, or any subset of it, is predictable without limit, forward or backward. And I mean predictable in the "strong sense" -- with even god-like powers.

 

I don't need to hang my hat on philosophical attachments to Freedom of Will. If infinite knowledge is unavailable; if it is USELESS even if available; then we may indeed live in a deterministic universe, but it is of the Second Kind.

 

And it is indistinguishable from a truly non-deterministic universe -- in the sense that we can never concoct an experiment that will distinguish the two. So, go ahead and have your cake. I'll eat it, too! :lol: ;)

[Jehu]

I have modestly suggested just such a reconciliation. There exists a "class" of deterministic universe (Deterministic Universe of the Second Kind) that is inherently indistinguishable from a truly non-deterministic universe -- and we live in one.

 

Such a "class" of deterministic universe would have to have the property that even having unlimited knowledge of its fully deterministic laws would IN NO WAY permit unbounded predictions of accuracy within that universe. This unpredictability would be inherent and unavoidable.

 

Two problems here, (1) does not the term, “Universe”, encompass all existence, and if so, how can there be a class of Universes, and (2) if unpredictability is inherent (fixed), why then could we not then learn to avoid it, for we need only decipher the principle whereby it operates.

 

In a Deterministic Universe (of the First Kind) we could have two identical copies of the universe and have them "execute" independently of each other -- and over aeons of time demonstrate that they are still identical.

 

Whereas modern science is just now beginning to grasp that even in small, limited subsets of our universe, performing the above "experiment" would eventually lead to the two copies becoming increasingly divergent.

 

By “identical”, I take it that you mean the two are “one and the same”, and if this is so then they cannot be independent, for to be independent is to be unrelated in any way. Perhaps you mean that they have the appearance of operating independently?

 

We can agree (if we choose) that our universe is deterministic in the sense that the Laws are inviolable. But this DOES NOT lead to the conclusion that the behavior of the universe, or any subset of it, is predictable without limit, forward or backward. And I mean predictable in the "strong sense" -- with even god-like powers.

 

What you say here is true, but I do not feel it is not particularly relevant to the question of determinism, for our ability or inability to predict the future state of the universe is more a matter of our own technical capacity, or lack thereof, than a matter of inherent determinism. By this, I mean we are not so much concerned with whether we can actually predict a future state, than we are with whether or not it is theoretically possible to do so.

 

Regards, Jehu

[IDMclean]

(1) does not the term, “Universe”, encompass all existence, and if so, how can there be a class of Universes

 

I did not read all of your post admittedly, but I can answer that one. Think of Time as a encompassing set containing XYZ inside of it.

[math]\begin{pmatrix} x \\ y \\ z \\ t \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} 1&x+y&x+z&x-t\\ y+x&1&y+z&y-t\\ z+x&z+y&1&z-t\\ t+x&x+y&x+z&-1 \end{pmatrix}[/math]

 

At any time you can have a given subset of dimensions within, and as such you can get a probabilistic spread of given values for those dimesnions. As it is in my purview the idea of a class of universes is such that there is the here and now, and then there is the possible future and past.

 

I think that's the one... Someone want to correct me?

[Jehu]

I did not read all of your post admittedly, but I can answer that one. Think of Time as a encompassing set containing XYZ inside of it.

[math]\begin{pmatrix} x \\ y \\ z \\ t \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} 1&x+y&x+z&x-t\\ y+x&1&y+z&y-t\\ z+x&z+y&1&z-t\\ t+x&x+y&x+z&-1 \end{pmatrix}[/math]

 

At any time you can have a given subset of dimensions within, and as such you can get a probabilistic spread of given values for those dimesnions. As it is in my purview the idea of a class of universes is such that there is the here and now, and then there is the possible future and past.

 

I think that's the one... Someone want to correct me?

I’m sorry, my question was purely rhetorical, and not meant to illicit an explanation. What I was trying to ask was how the term, “Universe”, which is defined as, “encompassing all existing things”, can be logically asserted to “not encompass” something, that is, other universes, for surely the two assertions are contradictory. Unless, of course, these externally residing universes are “non existent”, in which case, why bring them up at all?

 

Regards, Jehu

[IDMclean]

Yah that sounds right.

[Jehu]

Thanks to Infamous for explaining his ideas privately and for granting me permission to use those ideas on this thread.

The ideas are somewhat complicated and involve several questions tangential to the matter of whether or not a deterministic reality can exist in an environment including infinite elements. However, for the strictly deterministic component of Infamous' model, the set of conditions is assumed to be fully finite. This is not to say that it is required that it be fully finite, just that there is no provision for infinite elements. So, at this point, I'm still interested by the possibility of a deterministic view of reality that can accomodate infinite elements, if somebody can offer one.

You might want to have a look at the metaphysical doctrines that underlie the Buddhist and Taoist traditions. In these doctrines, the nature of reality is held to be essentially cognizant. This cognizance, which is absolute, independent, and immutable, comprises two interdependent and complementary aspects, awareness and knowledge. All things, however, are contingent, impermanent, and subject to continual change, mere appearances that arise out of the interplay of awareness and knowledge. Given their merely apparent ontological status, such things arise, evolve, degrade, and dissolve in accordance with the one principle which governs the interaction of awareness and knowledge – reason (cause). In this doctrine, the appearance of different classes of things, i.e., mentation, sensations, objects, properties, and activities, arise out of an evolutionary process wherein one class of things emerges out of lower class when a particular level of complexity is reached, just as the chemical world emerges out of the interaction of sub-atomic particles when they have amalgamated into sufficiently complex structures. Now, as the principle that governs the interaction of the two cognizant aspects is inviolable and non-regressive, you have a completely deterministic view of reality, while because the elements that participate in this reality are merely illusory, they are virtually infinite in both form and quantity.

 

Regards, Jehu

[ughaibu]

Jehu: You're talking about infinite potential consequences in a deterministic system, this is different from a system in which effects can be strictly determined by unbounded infinite elements.

[bilge]

NEW DETERMINISM = POSTMATERİALISM = THE PARADIGM OF ENERGY

 

We know that, materialism neglects the spritual fenomens. The spritual fenomens are deserted to Idealism totally since today.

 

But, new determinism has solve the mechanism of consciousness by energy and Bose-Einstein Concentrate.

 

All of the spritual fenomens and materials will be explained by the paradigm of energy.

[IDMclean]

Already working on that, mano. You should check out this thread: CUFT

 

As soon as we get that done, I was thinking maybe we could try our hands at figuring out where thought comes from, and what it's properties are, if any.

[Jehu]

Jehu: You're talking about infinite potential consequences in a deterministic system, this is different from a system in which effects can be strictly determined by unbounded infinite elements.

The elements (effects) of the cognizant system, although contingent, cannot be said to be merely potential, for they are manifest. Nevertheless, if you mean to limit the system to only those that contain elements that are real, then there exists no deterministic model that is logically tenable. The reasons why such a system cannot be are as follows.

 

That which is “real” must have an absolute and necessary and not merely contingent existence, and so must be completely self-contained (i.e., comprising its own causes) and not related to anything external. Such a thing then is completely incapable of any external influence or internal alteration, for either would requires the introduction or loss of something, that is, a force, a particle, a virtual photon, etc. Consequently, any deterministic system founded upon real elements, be they finite or not, is simply unworkable, for such elements are incapable of either alteration or interaction.

 

Contingent elements, on the other hand, are entirely dependent upon external causes, and so have no inherent properties whereby they might capable of influencing one another. Nevertheless, they can appear to influence one another, provide that the external causes upon which they are founded are themselves real, however, whatever properties they might appear to exhibit are not their own, but are derived entirely from those external causes.

 

Therefore, the only deterministic model that is logically defensible is that of a cognizant system containing infinite contingent elements. What’s more, this model alone is able to reconcile the two existential modes, for an absolute entity can only relate to that which is internal, while a contingent entity can only relate to that which is external.

 

Regards, Jehu

[ughaibu]

Jehu: Sorry, I dont understand what you're getting at, could you try again please. From your last paragraph, it appears that you are talking about a local deterministic effect, this is quite different from the situation implied by a deterministic reality.

A deterministic reality is necessarilly absolute, "self-contained", as you put it. Your earlier post appeared to suggest that infinite consequences are possible from finite conditions, whether or not this is so, in a deterministic reality all consequences are also pre-conditions so infinite consequences will not occur in a deterministic reality unless the system can be shown to be deterministic in the presence of infinite elements (conditions/causes).

Determinism is most probably unknowable in our observable reality, and, in any case, reality involves conceptual interpretations, so the philosophical position of determinism applies to conceptual rather than observable reality. Unless deterministic systems can be shown to be capable of strictly deriving consequences from infinite elements, I think determinism can be refuted.

[Pyrotex]

...What you say here is true, but I do not feel it is not particularly relevant to the question of determinism, for our ability or inability to predict the future state of the universe is more a matter of our own technical capacity, or lack thereof, than a matter of inherent determinism....

Oh my aching head.

 

No you don't understand. No No No No No No No No No.

The whole point of my posts was to say that our petty human frailties and technical capacities have NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING to do with our inability to predict the future.

 

The non-unbounded-predictibality of the Universe is inherent. There is nothing that even a God could do to get around this. It is built directly into the non-linear equations that govern all natural processes. there is no way out of this. The laws ARE deterministic, but they do not, CAN NOT give us unlimited predictablity. EVER. No way, no how.