Determinism

[IDMclean]

Here try this on for size.

 

Calculate Pi.

[bilge]

Dear kickassclown,

 

Thanks for your point about CUFT.

 

The science and philosophy will be developed by the paradigm upon ENERGY.

 

All of mystical events and spritual processes will be determined by the laws of ENERGY.

 

ENERGETİSM is a philosophic école (KONYA Felsefe OKULU) and was established at 1924. The first known father of this idea is W. Friedrich Ostwald.

 

According to this idea, the theory of everything or final theory has a powerful basis; it is ENERGY. And we have hopeful days for the meaning of universe and life.

[Pyrotex]

Here try this on for size. Calculate Pi.

Okay. Done. Now what? :hihi:

[Jehu]

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.

By a deterministic reality, I mean nothing more than that all phenomena (effects) arise as a result of the amalgamation of certain kinds of causes (other phenomena/effects), and in accordance with certain inviolable principles or laws.

 

Two primitive elements are sufficient to generate an infinite sequence of contingent effects/causes provided two fundamental conditions are met, (1) the two elements must be interdependent, and (2) the two elements must be complementary. By “interdependent” I mean that neither element may be said to possess an independent existence, that is they cannot be independently perceived or thought about. By “complementary” I mean that the two elements complete one another in a single entity that is absolute, independent, and immutable. In a cognizant reality, the two primary elements are awareness and knowledge, and the governing principle is reason. What makes such a deterministic system logically tenable, is the fact that the effects/causes are only illusory, and so they may appear to alter and interact in increasingly complex ways, without ever compromising the immutable status of Reality as a whole. Then, through a non-regressive evolutionary process there arises within certain contingent entities (e.g., Man) the appearance of free will, for all contingent entities are essentially cognizant, and so partake of awareness and knowledge.

 

I am certain that what I have said here seems entirely deranged to you, but I assure you that the claims I have made are completely reasonable, that is, they can be logically demonstrated.

 

Jehu.

[ughaibu]

Are you suggesting that awareness and knowledge aren't elements in a deterministic reality or are you suggesting that awareness and knowledge are the sum of reality?

This thread is about strict determinism, localised or restricted deterministic effects are a trivial issue. If you think that you can demonstrate infinite elements in the system, then the system is refuted unless it can derive consequences from a set of conditions that includes those infinities.

[Jehu]

Are you suggesting that awareness and knowledge aren't elements in a deterministic reality or are you suggesting that awareness and knowledge are the sum of reality?

This thread is about strict determinism, localised or restricted deterministic effects are a trivial issue. If you think that you can demonstrate infinite elements in the system, then the system is refuted unless it can derive consequences from a set of conditions that includes those infinities.

Please bear with me, I understand how subtle and difficult this is to take in, and I very much appreciate your making an effort to understand it.

 

In this doctrine, awareness and knowledge are the necessary and sufficient primitive elements that give rise to all things (effects), irrespective of their class. These elements, because of their interdependent and complementary relationship, cannot rightly be said to be “one element” nor “not one element”, for neither can exist independently of the other. Now, as to whether the these element may be characterized as finite or infinite, I would have to say neither completely one nor completely the other.

 

These elements are necessarily caught up in an indefinite and continuous process of alteration, a transformation continuum, the consequence of which accounts for all classes of effects. Now, the non-regressive process which generates these effects is strictly deterministic, in that it follows an inviolable law. The effects themselves are only contingent entities, and so are akin to shadows, “awareness” being analogous to the light source, and “knowledge” being analogous to the opaque object. These shadows appear to interact, as do shadow puppets, but the causes of the interaction are not inherent in the shadows themselves, but in their externally residing causes. Such a Reality, being absolute, can neither arise nor cease. Neither can it be said to reside in time or space, for it is time and space.

[ughaibu]

Jehu: I take it you're saying that according to this doctrine, awareness and knowledge are the sum of this deterministic reality ie this reality is a product of these elements. There are some problems with this: if this is a deterministic reality it is not influenced by anything outside of itself, this means that the only things that it can be aware of or know, are the awareness and knowledge themselves, that is to say that it is an empty system with neither causes nor consequences, and as it has no interaction with any other system, including time, it is non-existent. It is quite clear that human beings interact with and their mental models are influenced by a reality existing regardless of themselves. This can be tested by isolating a person for the duration of the present FIFA world cup, they will later find a commonality of new and consistent knowledge among their fellow humans, any doctrine claiming that this knowledge is an illusion created by the mind requires a sufficiently radical redefinition of "illusion" as to encompass both itself and the terms and ideations by which it is expressed, in the same class of illusion. In short, this doctrine says nothing about internal or external reality, determinism or indeterminism, it's eyewash and word juggling. A system can not derive consequences from a set of conditions that includes infinities simply by saying it can.

[Jehu]

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.

If what you are trying to point out is, that because we are not able to know enough about the state of the universe at any given point in time, we are then unable to predict its future state with absolute certainty, then I get your point. Nevertheless, the fact is, that if the universe is unfolding in accordance with some universal law of causation, an if that universal law is inviolable, then unless that law is the human will, such a system must then be deterministic. Is this not so? What’s more, if this “deterministic law” could be fully understood, and if the state of the universe at a specific instant could be perfectly known, there is nothing (in theory) to preclude us from predicting any future state. Is this not so? Now, if you have a mathematical proof which truly demonstrates that such predictability is impossible, I should like very much to see it, but to simply state that it is inherent in the “non-linear equations that govern all natural processes” is not a logical argument, but merely an opinion.

 

Jehu

[Pyrotex]

If what you are trying to point out is, that because we are not able to know enough about the state of the universe at any given point in time, we are then unable to predict its future state with absolute certainty, then I get your point.

You are QUITE well aware that is NOT my point. Don't toy with me.

Nevertheless, the fact is, that if the universe is unfolding in accordance with some universal law of causation,

That is not a FACT, but an expression of religious faith. There is no evidence for any universal law of causation.

...such a system must then be deterministic. Is this not so?

Afraid not. Though I admit that your logic appears plausible. But you are lacking any understanding of the math behind all this.

What’s more, if this “deterministic law” could be fully understood, and if the state of the universe at a specific instant could be perfectly known, there is nothing (in theory) to preclude us from predicting any future state. Is this not so?

it is not so. For example, what is the position of a dust mote? Its X-coordinate position may be relative to anything, say the center of the Earth. Doesn't matter. Now, what is X "exactly"? X = 4,007.38326572028302880271110845723048... How far do you go? If you want X "exactly" it must be forever. How do you store a number with an infinite number of digits? Assume every neutron in the universe can be used to store a 0 or 1. There are only 10^80 neutrons in the visible universe. What if the universe were hard-packed with neutrons? You could store a number with 10^110 digits -- BUT YOU STILL HAVE NOT STATED THE VALUE OF X EXACTLY. AN INFINITE NUMBER OF DIGITS IS REQUIRED! Therefore your assumption is FALSE. You cannot even in principle state exactly the position of that dust mote in even one dimension.

Now, if you have a mathematical proof which truly demonstrates that such predictability is impossible, I should like very much to see it,

I just gave you one.

but to simply state that it is inherent in the “non-linear equations that govern all natural processes” is not a logical argument, but merely an opinion.

That would be false as well. C'mon, borrow a copy of Gleick's book "Chaos". It is NOT that difficult to read. There's a junior in high school in my church who has read it and understood it.

[Jehu]

Jehu: I take it you're saying that according to this doctrine, awareness and knowledge are the sum of this deterministic reality ie this reality is a product of these elements. There are some problems with this: if this is a deterministic reality it is not influenced by anything outside of itself, this means that the only things that it can be aware of or know, are the awareness and knowledge themselves, that is to say that it is an empty system with neither causes nor consequences, and as it has no interaction with any other system, including time, it is non-existent. It is quite clear that human beings interact with and their mental models are influenced by a reality existing regardless of themselves. This can be tested by isolating a person for the duration of the present FIFA world cup, they will later find a commonality of new and consistent knowledge among their fellow humans, any doctrine claiming that this knowledge is an illusion created by the mind requires a sufficiently radical redefinition of "illusion" as to encompass both itself and the terms and ideations by which it is expressed, in the same class of illusion. In short, this doctrine says nothing about internal or external reality, determinism or indeterminism, it's eyewash and word juggling. A system can not derive consequences from a set of conditions that includes infinities simply by saying it can.

 

Reality is not a product of awareness and knowledge, so much as it is the union of the two. By this, I mean that Reality is essentially “cognizant”, and not “substantial” as it is generally to held.

 

I would agree with you completely up to your assertion that such a system is “non-existent”. Such a system, being fully self-contained and perfect, is completely unrelated to anything external, and so meets all the requirements of an absolute entity. Can you indicate one thing, material or otherwise, that can meet these same criteria?

 

It is quite “apparent” that human being, along with other things, interact with there environments, and it is true that they are all influenced a “reality existing regardless of themselves”, however,

 

Please, do not think that I am saying that the universe is a product of our own mentation, some sort of personal delusion.

In this doctrine, all things (including people) are contingent entities, and so have no inhering properties whatsoever - including cognizance. Whatever properties that they might appear to exhibit are derived wholly from their external causes: the two fundamental elements which comprise the nature of Reality. This cognizant reality, however, does no reside apart from those contingent entities (illusions or appearances), but within them, and so becomes fragmented. These fragments, partaking of the awareness and knowledge that is their fundamental nature, perceive one another to seemingly move about and interact, and so reason that they and the other things that they perceive are real, and so must necessarily possess inherent properties and appropriate activities.

 

I assure you, I’m am engaged in no sophistry here. Everything I assert may be derived by deductive reasoning alone, provided one begins ones enquiry from the only ground that we can be certain of: that we , ourselves, are cognizant.

 

Jehu

[Kriminal99]

You are QUITE well aware that is NOT my point. Don't toy with me. That is not a FACT, but an expression of religious faith. There is no evidence for any universal law of causation. Afraid not. Though I admit that your logic appears plausible. But you are lacking any understanding of the math behind all this. it is not so. For example, what is the position of a dust mote? Its X-coordinate position may be relative to anything, say the center of the Earth. Doesn't matter. Now, what is X "exactly"? X = 4,007.38326572028302880271110845723048... How far do you go? If you want X "exactly" it must be forever. How do you store a number with an infinite number of digits? Assume every neutron in the universe can be used to store a 0 or 1. There are only 10^80 neutrons in the visible universe. What if the universe were hard-packed with neutrons? You could store a number with 10^110 digits -- BUT YOU STILL HAVE NOT STATED THE VALUE OF X EXACTLY. AN INFINITE NUMBER OF DIGITS IS REQUIRED! .

 

You do not know this is the case. The universe could in fact be discrete, and the idea of a continuum could just be a human creation. This cannot be disproven, as you would need infinitely precise tools of measurement to disprove it.

[pgrmdave]

I don't think that this is what is meant by "known". When determinists speak of "knowing"... it is not quite in the sense we usually use it. It's more like pi. We don't know pi precisely, but perfect circles do, they use it. In the same sense, when determinists speak of "knowing" everything, they don't necessarily mean measuring everything, but a platonic ideal of knowledge.

[ughaibu]

Jehu:

There are people working in astronomical observatories, these people interact with events from millions of light years away, they also function socially, the internal mental component by which individuals perceive and model the universe is changed by this. Reality, in order to be deterministic, necessarilly extends beyond awareness and knowledge.

A system consisting of only awareness and knowledge, contains no object, other than itself, to know or be aware of, it can not change, it is purely definitional. There exist definitions of "zero", zero contains nothing, it can do nothing, if isolated it will never be able to do anything, it is fully determined, nevertheless it does not exist except as a conceptual convenience, it is the epitome of non-existence. A deterministic system is not a static entity.

In your final two paragraphs, you appear to be saying that you can demonstrate a contradiction in Descartes' metaphysics, while interesting, that isn't the topic of this thread. It would certainly be worth pursuing on new thread.

[Pyrotex]

Reality is not a product of awareness and knowledge, so much as it is the union of the two. By this, I mean that Reality is essentially “cognizant”, and not “substantial” as it is generally to held...I assure you, I’m am engaged in no sophistry here...

soph·is·try

NOUN: 1. Plausible but fallacious argumentation. 2. A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.

Jehu, I have read your post several times. If you cannot see that your post is indeed sophistry, then you may be under a delusion that "sophistry" means something other than it does. Your arguments, though having a veneer of plausibility, simply do not mean anything. "Reality is cognizant, not substantial." What does that MEAN? "...as it is generally held." WHO generally holds this? It does not matter if you are sincere and authentic. If your "logic" is in fact fallacious and without substance, then it is sophistry.

 

This is a science forum website. Discussions on almost any subject are welcome. But we encourage, and often insist, that posters provide a reasonable level of content.

 

Anybody can just engage in psycho-babble; for example: the cognizant affirmation of the human psyche reflects the incorporeal reality of the physical universe, thereby constraining the use of mathematical modeling to just those aspects of linear processes and their sequalae that can be observed to be consistent with the metaphorical rationale of their ultimate causation.

 

Easy. I could spit that stuff out all day without even going to a thesaurus. I can make it as plausible and almost-rational as I need to. But it's just sophistry.

[Pyrotex]

...I don't think that this is what is meant by "known". When determinists speak of "knowing"... it is not quite in the sense we usually use it. It's more like pi. We don't know pi precisely, but perfect circles do, they use it. In the same sense, when determinists speak of "knowing" everything, they don't necessarily mean measuring everything, but a platonic ideal of knowledge.

 

I am inclined to disagree.

A circle does not "know" anything or "use" anything. It does not "access" the value of pi "in order to" determine its own length. In no sense does the "value of pi" have to be understood, known, accessed or used for a circle to exist, and for its circumference to be "exactly" its diameter times pi.

 

However, "prediction" is a human process, a mental and intellectual process, something done by a sentient being with intentionality. To "predict" the behavior of any physical system, the sentient being requires data. It must access information. The "values" of measured parameters or things or whatevers must be transferred, or "input" to the sentient mind of that being. And ALL measured parameters are inherently inaccurate. (This excludes "counted" parameters.)

 

Knowing "exactly" the state of any significant physical system, even the position of an atom, is simply out of the question.

 

One could counter that the universe may be quantized in time and space. There are credible theories that make that point. Okay. Way down below even quantum events, there is said to be the Planck Distance and the Planck Time, which are the smallest intervals possible in our universe. One could conjecture then that "exact" knowledge of the state of, say, an atom could be known.

 

However, getting that information from the atom itself to the entity that makes the "prediction" requires a non-zero amount of time. The speed of light is finite. Therefore, you are stymied again. You cannot ever know what the state of the atom is NOW, only the state it had once, some significant time ago in the past. What forces it may have suffered since then is completely unknowable to you, because that information is still in transit.

 

Summary: The laws of the universe may be "deterministic" in that their ultimate causes run on equations with discrete answers. (In fact this is false: QM--but I'll allow it for argument's sake.) However, this determinism does NOT allow us exact knowledge of anything and therefore gives us only a limited ability to make predictions.

 

It's not OUR fault. It's the universe's fault.

[α CMa]

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.

imho

there is free will and the only determinism that exists is that we are bound to laws like there can be only one proton and one electron in a hydrogen atom and things like that. other wise we are pretty much free to determine what we want to do with that hydrogen atom.

[Pyrotex]

imho

there is free will and the only determinism that exists is that we are bound to laws like there can be only one proton and one electron in a hydrogen atom and things like that. other wise we are pretty much free to determine what we want to do with that hydrogen atom.

Amen!

Let's get us a couple of oxygen atoms and BURN the hydrogen atom!!