(July 1, 2013 at 9:06 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Not only is determinism unproven, it is unprovable. You must prove that given a particular state of the universe at time t, there is only one possible outcome for time t+1.

Show me the evidence that "things could not have gone differently than they have." You cannot. What you have is not a scientific conclusion, but a philosophical assumption made on the basis that it accords with what we are used to thinking about in science.

Really, the only relevant issue here is whether or not the universe is sufficiently non-deterministic to allow us to have real free will. The answer to that question appears to be no. The only non-deterministic processes we've detected are at the quantum level, far below anything approaching our consciousness, and even if those drove consciousness, we'd have random will, not free will.

(July 9, 2013 at 6:56 am)Zen Badger Wrote: What is the test for determinism?

Making accurate predictions everytime.

Negative, whether or not a prediction is possible, if only in theory - as in, if we knew x and y precisely then we could predict z...which is pretty much how all of our predictions work (and they're very successful..even with regards to predicting human behavior and decision-making...see: marketing) is all that's required as evidence of deterministic behavior. We understand that we may lack the precision required to nail something down as accurately as we would like (which for many, including yourself obviously..would be nothing less than absolute and unerring certainty).

Quote:And not just predicting that a rock will roll to the bottom of a hill, but accurately predicting its path including every bounce and tumble.

So the rolling down the hill bit is okay -that's not surprising (is that deterministic behavior, in your estimation?) - but the other behaviors (the bounces and tumbles)........what (in what way are they different, for example)?

Quote:When you can do that, talk to me then.

It would be a sad day indeed the day we had that talk (I generally hope we never get -that- good at predicting things, or that it's just not possible for us to do so). I fear you may have mistakenly set the bar where it does not belong.

RE our chaotic and emergent universe....some of us aren't satisfied with assigning our ineptitude at measurement the status of "part of the fabric of cosmos". It's not such a strange thing. Your "free will" for example, is exactly what it was the moment before. It changes nothing in our experience, nothing whatsoever. OTOH, we could also wonder whther or not our descriptions of the universe where deterministic because that;s pretty much the way -we- experience things (but we wouldn;t want to wonder too hard..because then we have hard determinism and solipsism biting at our heels...gl out of that hole). In any case, we attempt to explain the unknown by way of the known.......so....when we see deterministic behavior all around us - unless we're giving out special passes for ourselves on unspoken grounds- it looks pretty bleak (or fantastic, I suppose, depending on where you're coming from).

Well, I was gonna go after some users' misunderstandings od determinism, but others have done so. I mean, YES we can predict human behavior accurately to some extent (currently), and even do so before the person(s) in question is even consciously aware of having decided to do so.

(July 9, 2013 at 2:34 pm)MikeTheInfidel Wrote:

(July 1, 2013 at 9:06 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Not only is determinism unproven, it is unprovable. You must prove that given a particular state of the universe at time t, there is only one possible outcome for time t+1.

Show me the evidence that "things could not have gone differently than they have." You cannot. What you have is not a scientific conclusion, but a philosophical assumption made on the basis that it accords with what we are used to thinking about in science.

Really, the only relevant issue here is whether or not the universe is sufficiently non-deterministic to allow us to have real free will. The answer to that question appears to be no. The only non-deterministic processes we've detected are at the quantum level, far below anything approaching our consciousness, and even if those drove consciousness, we'd have random will, not free will.

The problem is that you can only detect physical processes. The whole process of using science to study mind is a giant question-begging one, because you already accept that mind is a physical process. I do not accept that only those things which are physically provable are existent, or real, or of value; I DO accept that only those things which are physically provable are appropriate subjects for scientific inquiry. The problem is that "prove it" has become a modern mantra-- and yet I cannot even prove the existence of mind, the most salient feature of my existence. If you really want to be scientific, we should be saying, "What is this mind thing of which you speak? There's no mind, so there can't be any free will, which is a property of mind." Of course, we all know the problem with saying that.

Some of the experiments done showing that you can predict some action shortly before a person becomes consciously aware of their own intent are very cool. HOWEVER, as far as I know, in all cases subjects were "primed" to say hit a buzzer. So although the moment of striking was unkown to the subject, the willful intent to hit a buzzer at some time had already been reached.

Now would be a good point for people to link all the experiments that show how wrong I am.

Another post that was predictable.

(July 9, 2013 at 6:48 pm)bennyboy Wrote: The problem is that you can only detect physical processes. The whole process of using science to study mind is a giant question-begging one, because you already accept that mind is a physical process.

That's not much of a problem at all. Assume fairies in the case of the mind-no...really, assume them, and it won't matter. Determinism isn't a position on whether or not you're a clock or a golem. It's interested in how the clock or golem behaves. It's not even a position on -why- or -how- things behave in such a manner.

(July 9, 2013 at 7:04 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(July 9, 2013 at 6:48 pm)bennyboy Wrote: The problem is that you can only detect physical processes. The whole process of using science to study mind is a giant question-begging one, because you already accept that mind is a physical process.

That's not much of a problem at all. Assume fairies in the case of the mind-no...really, assume them, and it won't matter. Determinism isn't a position on whether or not you're a clock or a golem. It's interested in how the clock or golem behaves. It's not even a position on -why- or -how- things behave in such a manner.

I don't need to assume fairies. I already have the mind, which is already indetectable by anyone but me. And I don't need to assume it; I take my experience of it as sufficient, since experience alone is sufficient to prove it.

Your point is a good one, though. It's certainly possible that the mind is deterministic; the popular idea here seems to be that it's the experience of brain function, not some kind of 2-way bridge between physical process and something else. Why a deterministic process is accompanied by a subjective perspective is another issue.

But I don't even need to invoke mind to have philosophical doubts about determinism. To prove determinism, you have to show clearly that for any given state of the universe at a time t, you couldn't possibly have had a different outcome at time t+1. This is impossible for obvious reasons.

---

(July 9, 2013 at 6:54 pm)little_monkey Wrote: Another post that was predictable.

Oh sure, you say that AFTER I made it. Now, if you can predict my NEXT post, I'll be very impressed.

(July 9, 2013 at 7:20 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(July 9, 2013 at 6:54 pm)little_monkey Wrote: Another post that was predictable.

Oh sure, you say that AFTER I made it. Now, if you can predict my NEXT post, I'll be very impressed.

For some reasons, I knew you were going to say something to that effect. Tell a child not to do something, it's more likely the child will do it. Tell someone he has no free will and he or she will go out of his/her way to prove he/she has free will. Humans are so predictable. I predict in the next 24 hours, you will eat something, go to the restroom, and sleep a number of hours. And at some point, you will get bored and want to do something "different".

(July 9, 2013 at 7:20 pm)bennyboy Wrote: To prove determinism, you have to show clearly that for any given state of the universe at a time t, you couldn't possibly have had a different outcome at time t+1. This is impossible for obvious reasons.

Except when it isn't impossible eh, like when water auto levels or when a growth inhibitor is applied to synthase, or when a round is fired in a test chamber. Again, setting a requirement for complete knowledge is unreasonable. Especially considering that what knowledge we have is sufficient for establishing deterministic behavior.

"To know anything you must know everything" seems to be the argument, perhaps unintentionally, idk. I doubt you have any beef with the deterministic behavior above, so the impasse likely only exists at certain points, which is why I keep mentioning the granting of special passes. I mean, I;d like to be able to give such a pass myself, to say "Sure, the water levels, organic chemistry ticks like a clock, rounds downrange go where we send them, the rock rolls in a certain direction - but-...the "mind", whatever it is, is different, special, not subject to" - the trouble is that the requirements for evidence of deterministic behavior have been met in the case of the "mind" or it's effects - regardless of what that "mind" is or how it achieves those effects. IOW, if I have a premise or assertion that states that the mind appears to behave in a deterministic manner (which is of course included in a claim such as "the known universe appears to behave in a deterministic manner", in toto)- I'll be able to assign a measure of truth the the assertion, there's at least some way to decide how sound such a statement is/might be. We might both be able to form a valid argument for either position - but how might you measure your hypothetical assertions, relative to mine? Whose argument has more power as a way to determine the truth rather than an exersize in craft?

@Rhythm:

I think either we have different standards of what determinism is, or different standards of application.

It is your idea, I think, that the predictability of at least some systems constitutes evidence of determinism. After all, if you can consistently predict the result of a system, then that's a good indication that that system could not have turned out otherwise.

However, I don't accept predictability in simple systems as evidence for philosophical determinism: that in a physical monism, ALL states must grind through their calculations, with exactly (and only) ONE possible resultant state. There are many simple aspects of life which we cannot calculate, and which a better mathematician than I could show would require a computer of physically impossible capabilities. Let's say, for example, that you wanted to predict the world's weather, on a per-km basis. Do you write away the butterfly effect as a matter of faith, "We COULD calculate it if we had a better computer?" Do you bolster your confidence with statistics: "We predicted 70% chance of rain for an area of 10,000 square km, and we measured rain in 70% of the stations in that area! Yay?"

Let's say you have a predictive system which requires the value pi. Two things become suddenly obvious: 1) your predictive ability will never be perfect, and you can never prove absolute determinism: your result will always give a RANGE of possible outcomes; 2) subsequent predictions will ALWAYS eventually go from 99.9999%, to 99%, and down to 0.00001% confidence levels, no matter how many digits of pi you've arbitrarily settled on as "good enough." Even good ol' classical billiard-ball calculations will confound you pretty quick.

So claims that simple predictions constitute evidence for determinism essentially imply: "IF we could have the complete value of pi, we could calculate this system perfectly." The "weight of evidence" you're talking about fails, because you aren't giving evidence for the right thing: "I can calculate how long it will take a ball to hit the Earth when I drop it, every time, within 1 thousandth of a second" does not constitute meaningful evidence for philosophical determinism.