It isn't just memories that you'd have to erase. Over the course of those 10 years, imagine a man (let's call him Humphrey) stops one night to stand and stare at the star-filled heavens as a meteor-shower passes by. He enjoys the sight, but he can't stay there for ever.

During his drive home, he alters the flow of traffic for 30 complete strangers, who arrive either later or earlier depending on the actions of Humphrey. Among those 30 people, 2 catch their spouse with a lover, 3 catch part of a TV programme that they'd otherwise have missed, altering their perception about problems with their country and their world... 2 of whom change their vote at the next election because of it. And the rest of those 30 people have had their life-experience altered, even if in the tiniest amount.

Those 30 people interact with hundreds of people, who then interact with hundreds more. There is a chain-event, much like a butterfly and a tornado... demonstrating the holistic nature of humanity's experiences.

All because Humphrey stopped to admire something external to Earth's little bubble.

(July 14, 2013 at 12:08 pm)little_monkey Wrote:

(July 14, 2013 at 11:28 am)Rhythm Wrote: pre-determiniation or fatalism is similarly non-deterministic. Good shit, eh? I wouldn't go so far as to say that denying determinism denies science though. That the world is knowable, that knowledge can be had - would more aptly, be the foundation of science.

If the universe wouldn't be deterministic, then it would contain lots of magic as it would not be governed by any laws, and such universe would not be understood under scientific scrutiny. Whether you want to admit or not, but the moment you do science you've already conceeded that it is deterministic. Determinism is a presupposition to any scientific enquiry. It's not something you can prove but it is a starting hypothesis. Scientific theories, scientific models are all based on the notion that the universe is ruled by laws, and therefore it is deterministic. If we know the initial conditions and all the relevant forces, we know exactly how the universe will behave in the future. All scientists have acted under that notion. That's why I said: deny determinism and you deny science.

I would have believed that right up until science adapted to light duality in less than 1 generation. Now, I think science will gloss right over any apparent fault by simply accepting its reality: "Oh yeah, of course now we know there are hidden variables (or free will, or ___). In fact, Dr. Eisenblatterhausen has proven that given system X, over time t, Y% of the variability is due to magic space monkeys."

(July 14, 2013 at 3:08 pm)little_monkey Wrote: I know this is highly hypothetical, but if I could send you back 10 years and erase all your memory in those 10 years, do you believe you would make different choices and live a different life?

Personally I don't. In exactly the same circumstances, we would make exactly the same choices.

No, I don't imagine that I would live my life or "make any choices" differently all other things being equivalent.

(July 14, 2013 at 4:19 pm)bennyboy Wrote: "Oh yeah, of course now we know there are hidden variables (or free will, or ___). In fact, Dr. Eisenblatterhausen has proven that given system X, over time t, Y% of the variability is due to magic space monkeys."

Dr Eisen probably won't prove anything at all - but there may come a time when we have evidence that we don't have now, sure. That doesn't give us any reason to give out special passes in the now, imo.

(July 14, 2013 at 4:19 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I would have believed that right up until science adapted to light duality in less than 1 generation. Now, I think science will gloss right over any apparent fault by simply accepting its reality: "Oh yeah, of course now we know there are hidden variables (or free will, or ___). In fact, Dr. Eisenblatterhausen has proven that given system X, over time t, Y% of the variability is due to magic space monkeys."

Hmmm, "light duality"... don't know what that means. Perhaps you mean particle/wave duality. I think that's dead now. Field is the underlying reality in QFT. Also, I think the hidden variable thingy is pretty much dead by now. Although there are a few holdouts, but in the last 50 years or so, nothing ever came out from that crowd. As to space monkeys,

(July 14, 2013 at 4:34 pm)little_monkey Wrote: [/URL]

That is a space ape, not a space monkey.

(July 14, 2013 at 4:23 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Dr Eisen probably won't prove anything at all - but there may come a time when we have evidence that we don't have now, sure. That doesn't give us any reason to give out special passes in the now, imo.

No, but it DOES mean that philosophical determinism isn't the threat to science that Joe (and probably most people) say it is. In fact, science already uses probabilities to account for the difference the range of possible outcomes of a system beforehand, and the actual outcome of the system once it unfolds and is directly measurable.

Anyway, if philosophical determinism is being based on physical evidence and scientific logic, then consider this: bursts of energy from events on distant stars aren't predictable. We have evidence of such bursts, and assume that such bursts will occur again in our future, but absolutely cannot predict them. This means that we have to account for such bursts in any fine-tuned calculations we're doing, which will therefore be probabilistic at best, or purely chaotic at worst.

So I don't think using physical observations as evidence of determinism works at all. We're stuck with a philosophical approach.

(July 14, 2013 at 9:12 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Anyway, if philosophical determinism is being based on physical evidence and scientific logic, then consider this: bursts of energy from events on distant stars aren't predictable. We have evidence of such bursts, and assume that such bursts will occur again in our future, but absolutely cannot predict them. This means that we have to account for such bursts in any fine-tuned calculations we're doing, which will therefore be probabilistic at best, or purely chaotic at worst.

Which is all fine and well. We have to play with the hand we're dealt, obviously.

Quote:So I don't think using physical observations as evidence of determinism works at all. We're stuck with a philosophical approach.

A philosophical approach to evidence of determinism? That's pretty much what the thread has been, thusfar.

A philosophical approach to prove determinism.

Instead of the scientific method.

I think that qualifies as a fail.

Trouble is, the scientific method doesn't prove things. It's actually the requirements of proof (math, logic) that haven't been met, in the case of hard determinism.

(July 14, 2013 at 9:12 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(July 14, 2013 at 4:23 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Dr Eisen probably won't prove anything at all - but there may come a time when we have evidence that we don't have now, sure. That doesn't give us any reason to give out special passes in the now, imo.

No, but it DOES mean that philosophical determinism isn't the threat to science that Joe (and probably most people) say it is. In fact, science already uses probabilities to account for the difference the range of possible outcomes of a system beforehand, and the actual outcome of the system once it unfolds and is directly measurable.

Anyway, if philosophical determinism is being based on physical evidence and scientific logic, then consider this: bursts of energy from events on distant stars aren't predictable. We have evidence of such bursts, and assume that such bursts will occur again in our future, but absolutely cannot predict them. This means that we have to account for such bursts in any fine-tuned calculations we're doing, which will therefore be probabilistic at best, or purely chaotic at worst.

So I don't think using physical observations as evidence of determinism works at all. We're stuck with a philosophical approach.

I think we've done this before: you are confusing what is reality and our knowledge of reality. The reason we use probability simply means we don't know all the relevant factors. Tossing a coin is the typical example: if we knew all the forces acting on a coin, we would be able to predict its outcome, instead we don't, and so we deal with this situation using the probability that it's going to be 50% heads, 50% tails. This is a reflection of our knowledge, not that reality is not deterministic. The alternative is to believe in magic, for lack of a better word. After 500 years of scientific investigation, there's not a shred of evidence that this universe functions on magic.