(July 24, 2013 at 12:06 am)bennyboy Wrote: Let me clarify something here. I'm not arguing non-determinism; I'm a confirmed agnostic, and worse, an ambiguist.

Re the OP, I'm arguing that determinism is an assumption, not a provable position, and not one for which even sufficient evidence can be provided (due to calculation issues, and the fact that knowing 100% of the state of even a very small system is probably not even theoretically possible).

B and ital mine.

The bolded bit is strange, you don't seem to feel that ambiguity belongs in the case of the falling rock. Do we simply assume that the rock will fall, or do we expect the rock to fall because of repeated experiments and understanding of the underlying cause that states that given t (an unsupported rock at altitude) t+ (the rock falls)? This is a very simple system. It isn't mysterious.

The ital bit is -yet another- call for total knowledge. You and I could not prove anything.....anything at all....if this is a requirement or disqualifying metric. Offering evidence for determinism (and even proving determinsim) does not hinge on having total knowledge of any given system. To be blunt, you're being entirely unreasonable. Perhaps if I offered the same criticism of non-deterministic things - the one you love so well....you cannot prove or show evidence for any such thing as you are (equally) unaware of knowing the state of something 100%.

This all has to do with our ability to know something, or anything - and nothing to do with determinism or non-determinism specifically. That's why this particular line of skepticism is not compelling to me, being a highly skeptical person myself. It's a complete and total disconnect. If such knowledge is a requirement, I concede. Nothing can be proven or shown in evidence. Hell, I can't even prove that nothing can be proven or shown in evidence...I can't even prove...that I cant prove ...that... -ad infinitum.

Quote:I'm not arguing that the mind is non-deterministic, though in a thread about that, I might lean that way. However, if any part of mind is outside of physical causality, then the universe is non-deterministic.

Non seq bud. Determinism can also be true for "immaterial chains of causality". It doesn't really matter whether or not the given is material or immaterial, so long as given t, t+1. It would be a bitch to pin down "immaterial chains of causality" though, eh?

Quote: If mind is, as many now believe, just the subjective experience of objective processes, then it has no effect on determinism.

Incorrect, that would be fatalism, not determinism. Under a deterministic model your mind does have an effect (regardless of how woefully wrong our idea of "self" or "mind" may be under said model).

Quote:If it is something else, then it may represent an additional causal influence.

-which is fine for a deterministic model.

(July 23, 2013 at 8:13 pm)bennyboy Wrote: You are attempting to paint the picture in religious or magical terms: because flitting sounds like something angels or fairies would do. I have two candidates in mind: 1) randomness; 2) mind

There are two kinds of randomness: epistemological randomness and ontological randomness.

Epistemological randomness is just an ignorance of the causes that produce a given effect. This is determinism even though we lack knowledge to make accurate predictions.

Ontological randomness is an event that occurs without a cause. This type of randomness is not due to ignorance; it is due to a particular range of natural phenomena being intrinsically without causation. This means that even if we had complete knowledge of initial conditions, prediction would still be absolutely impossible. This is indeterminism.

Note: we don't have any evidence of ontological randomness.

Quote:I agree. If there IS any variability in the universe, scientists will categorize it, enumerate it, and look for ways to benefit from it. Even if God was proven/provable, that wouldn't mean anything. The only thing that can stop science is that causation get completely broken, and nothing can be predicted any more.

Is there any reason why you would want science to be stopped?

Quote:

Quote:Why the pessimism? Why do you think we will never have a theory to explain that? Just 100 years ago we did not understand why two atoms could combine to form a molecule. Today we do. Just 100 years ago, cosmology didn't exist. Today, it does -- and it's yanking the theists in a very bad way. Why do you insist that we should know everything, today?

I have a specific reason in this case. Science is a process of objective study, and the mind exists only as a subjective entity. I do not accept the equation of mind with brain function, because subjective existence and objective existence are not of like type.

If you would open your computer, you would see circuits opening and closing. You would not see that those operations are in effect meant to represent a whole string of zero's and one's, which in term represent symbolically to do certain operations like adding, subtracting, which in terms represents the actual functioning that you see like, print on the screen, send message to receiver, store message in registry 2, erase registry 3, clear CPU, etc. Similarly, if we would open up your brain we would see synapses and neurons reacting with electric impulses, but would not see that these represent your thoughts. Will there be a day when we can do that? Who knows.

Quote:

Quote:You are looking at a "why" question - "Why do we exist?" is not a question that science will ever answer. Science can only shed some light by telling us "how" the universe works. But it is up to each and every one of us to find an answer as to why we exist, what do we want from life, how to make our lives meaningful. You wouldn't want to make those decisions based on superstitions, falsehoods or wild fairy tales as found in most religions .

Some "why" questions, at least as I see them, serve as a standing challenge to particular theories. Why the mind exists matters, because the current scientific position is that the universe can be understood purely in objective terms. To say that some objective processes are subjective is to say that dark is sometimes light.

There was a time we thought that Black Holes would not let any light out -- that's why they are called Blach Holes -- yet now we think that they can radiate (Hawking Radiation). So anything is possible -- the subjective could be explained objectively. Why not!

(July 24, 2013 at 8:45 am)Rhythm Wrote: The bolded bit is strange, you don't seem to feel that ambiguity belongs in the case of the falling rock. Do we simply assume that the rock will fall, or do we expect the rock to fall because of repeated experiments and understanding of the underlying cause that states that given t (an unsupported rock at altitude) t+ (the rock falls)? This is a very simple system. It isn't mysterious.

The rock as you see it is a symbol. The actual system includes all the particles IN the rock.

Quote:The ital bit is -yet another- call for total knowledge. You and I could not prove anything.....anything at all....if this is a requirement or disqualifying metric. Offering evidence for determinism (and even proving determinsim) does not hinge on having total knowledge of any given system. To be blunt, you're being entirely unreasonable. Perhaps if I offered the same criticism of non-deterministic things - the one you love so well....you cannot prove or show evidence for any such thing as you are (equally) unaware of knowing the state of something 100%.

An unreasonable assertion opens the door for unreasonable evidence. If you say you have evidence that some things can be shown deterministic in a pragmatic way, like rocks always falling, that's fine. However, if you want to prove a global determinism, in which the state of all things in the universe is determine by, and only by, the state of all things in the universe the previous moment, then I have a problem with that assertion.

Quote:This all has to do with our ability to know something, or anything - and nothing to do with determinism or non-determinism specifically. That's why this particular line of skepticism is not compelling to me, being a highly skeptical person myself. It's a complete and total disconnect. If such knowledge is a requirement, I concede. Nothing can be proven or shown in evidence. Hell, I can't even prove that nothing can be proven or shown in evidence...I can't even prove...that I cant prove ...that... -ad infinitum.

As I said, the degree of the claim must be matched by the degree of evidence. You can't go from falling rocks to a general philosophical principle.

Let me ask you this: how would you go about proving determinism? I suggested playing with a time machine, and reliving the same moment over and over, as the only reliable method of doing this. Some think this beyond our technology, and have said merely the ability to predict the outcome of systems is good evidence. But you can't take a couple dozen (or a couple million) predictable systems and call it evidence; at the very least, you have to show what PERCENT of all systems in the universe are predictable.

Here's a hint: that percent is going to rapidly approach zero. You'll say you can predict a rock falling, and I'll ask you to track all the particles in that rock. Or even a hundred of them.

Quote:Non seq bud. Determinism can also be true for "immaterial chains of causality". It doesn't really matter whether or not the given is material or immaterial, so long as given t, t+1. It would be a bitch to pin down "immaterial chains of causality" though, eh?

You're right. If free will, for example, is deterministic, but operates outside of spacetime, you could say that's still determimism. But it now causes the universe to completely fail the predictability test. In this case, I'd call it pseudo-nondeterministic.

Quote:Incorrect, that would be fatalism, not determinism. Under a deterministic model your mind does have an effect (regardless of how woefully wrong our idea of "self" or "mind" may be under said model).

If mind is only brain function, then it's just part of that determinism.

Quote:

Quote:If it is something else, then it may represent an additional causal influence.

-which is fine for a deterministic model.

The point is that if any part of mind exists outside spacetime as we currently conceive it, it will act as a hidden variable, breaking the ability to predict states on what CAN BE OBSERVED in this universe.

---

(July 24, 2013 at 9:12 am)little_monkey Wrote: Is there any reason why you would want science to be stopped?

I don't want my meat to be grown on trees.

Seriously, though, no. I'm just saying that absolute determinism isn't necessary for science to continue doing what it does.

Quote:Similarly, if we would open up your brain we would see synapses and neurons reacting with electric impulses, but would not see that these represent your thoughts. Will there be a day when we can do that? Who knows.

I don't know, though I kind of suspect there will be such a day. But what I really want to know, is do minds generate a field, or operate in some dimension, in which they CAN be manipulated. For example, could two brains, with two minds, be joined together and interact in that one common space?

/hippie-dippie speculation

Quote:

Quote:Some "why" questions, at least as I see them, serve as a standing challenge to particular theories. Why the mind exists matters, because the current scientific position is that the universe can be understood purely in objective terms. To say that some objective processes are subjective is to say that dark is sometimes light.

There was a time we thought that Black Holes would not let any light out -- that's why they are called Blach Holes -- yet now we think that they can radiate (Hawking Radiation). So anything is possible -- the subjective could be explained objectively. Why not!

Each generation has the irritating habit of disproving the assumptions of those before it. My own assumptions could face that fate, and so could yours. Fun!

(July 24, 2013 at 9:29 am)bennyboy Wrote: The rock as you see it is a symbol. The actual system includes all the particles IN the rock.

Sure, but even if we had no knowledge of those particles it would still be possible to observe this falling behaviour yes?

Quote:An unreasonable assertion opens the door for unreasonable evidence. If you say you have evidence that some things can be shown deterministic in a pragmatic way, like rocks always falling, that's fine. However, if you want to prove a global determinism, in which the state of all things in the universe is determine by, and only by, the state of all things in the universe the previous moment, then I have a problem with that assertion.

As would I. So I make no such assertion. I do understand that the implications of other positions I hold would yield a scenario in which this could be true, though.

Quote:As I said, the degree of the claim must be matched by the degree of evidence. You can't go from falling rocks to a general philosophical principle.

Oh I absolutely can (and have - even in this thread-). I simply conclude with the frank reality of the position merely being something that is suggested by available evidence - but not necessarily true.

Quote:Let me ask you this: how would you go about proving determinism? I suggested playing with a time machine, and reliving the same moment over and over, as the only reliable method of doing this. Some think this beyond our technology,

-because it is beyond our ability. It may not even be within our ability to conceptualize accurately.

Quote: and have said merely the ability to predict the outcome of systems is good evidence.

Because it is. Making a successful prediction is a double bonus.

Quote: But you can't take a couple dozen (or a couple million) predictable systems and call it evidence;

yes..you can. They are evidence of the existence of at least a couple dozen (or a couple million) predictable systems.

Quote: at the very least, you have to show what PERCENT of all systems in the universe are predictable.

-yet another demand for total knowledge. How could I accurately assign any percentage based upon the total number of things we might classify as system in ignorance of that total?

Quote:Here's a hint: that percent is going to rapidly approach zero.

See above. Heres a hint - you can't even know that. It is merely suggested by evidence. As is determinism.

Quote:You'll say you can predict a rock falling, and I'll ask you to track all the particles in that rock. Or even a hundred of them.

I can track their downward progress as a collective. Yet another call to total knowledge. Perhaps I haven;t made this clear...this is a fundamental fail in either of our positions - it is a fundamental fail in critical thought.

Quote:You're right. If free will, for example, is deterministic, but operates outside of spacetime, you could say that's still determimism. But it now causes the universe to completely fail the predictability test.

No..it would cause "free will" to fail the predictability test (which it hasn;t by the way, predicting our "free will" is a multi billion dollar business...and they're good at it)

Quote: In this case, I'd call it pseudo-nondeterministic.

I'd say that if we could find such a thing the universe et al as deterministic would be DOA. Now all we have to do is find such a thing.

Quote:If mind is only brain function, then it's just part of that determinism.

Correct, but your example described it as "having no effect". This is non-deterministic. I'll force you to appreciate the nuances of these positions if it kills me..hehehehe.

Quote:The point is that if any part of mind exists outside spacetime as we currently conceive it, it will act as a hidden variable, breaking the ability to predict states on what CAN BE OBSERVED in this universe.

A hidden variable is nevertheless one which exists (to be hidden). If we assumed such a variable we are still left with our ability to make successful predictions (even with regards to "free will") in the here and now (speaking of what can be observed) - but more fundamentally..we are left with a system in which predictions are possible - even though we may be incapable of performing them.

(July 24, 2013 at 9:29 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(July 24, 2013 at 9:12 am)little_monkey Wrote: Similarly, if we would open up your brain we would see synapses and neurons reacting with electric impulses, but would not see that these represent your thoughts. Will there be a day when we can do that? Who knows.

I don't know, though I kind of suspect there will be such a day. But what I really want to know, is do minds generate a field, or operate in some dimension, in which they CAN be manipulated. For example, could two brains, with two minds, be joined together and interact in that one common space?

/hippie-dippie speculation

Maybe. But more realistic would be a device that could be hooked up to your brain, and as you are thinking, those very thoughts are converted to images that would be seen on a screen.

Better not thinking on cheating on your wife!

Quote:There was a time we thought that Black Holes would not let any light out -- that's why they are called Blach Holes -- yet now we think that they can radiate (Hawking Radiation). So anything is possible -- the subjective could be explained objectively. Why not!

Quote:Each generation has the irritating habit of disproving the assumptions of those before it. My own assumptions could face that fate, and so could yours. Fun!

So far, I have 500 years of scientific investigation saying, there's no evidence of the immaterialism, or a spiritual world, or magic, and determinism is a pretty good foundation for explaining the universe.

(July 24, 2013 at 9:55 am)Rhythm Wrote:

Quote: and have said merely the ability to predict the outcome of systems is good evidence.

Because it is. Making a successful prediction is a double bonus.

Except it isn't. When I hear thunder, I can predict rain with 100% success. This definitely does NOT generalize to the idea that all weather behaves predictably.

Quote:

Quote: But you can't take a couple dozen (or a couple million) predictable systems and call it evidence;

yes..you can. They are evidence of the existence of at least a couple dozen (or a couple million) predictable systems.

Yes, but there are infinitely many unpredictable systems.

Quote:You're right. If free will, for example, is deterministic, but operates outside of spacetime, you could say that's still determimism. But it now causes the universe to completely fail the predictability test.

No..it would cause "free will" to fail the predictability test (which it hasn;t by the way, predicting our "free will" is a multi billion dollar business...and they're good at it)[/quote]
No. It would mean that free will would exert an influence at time t + 1, and that since you cannot predict that influence, the chain of causality is broken.

And we're pretty good at undertanding people, but if you think we've mastered this in a deterministic way, you need to tell me what stock to buy. ;P

Quote:A hidden variable is nevertheless one which exists (to be hidden). If we assumed such a variable we are still left with our ability to make successful predictions (even with regards to "free will") in the here and now (speaking of what can be observed) - but more fundamentally..we are left with a system in which predictions are possible - even though we may be incapable of performing them.

If you had access to that hidden variable, you could. But "hidden" means you can't.

---

(July 24, 2013 at 10:18 am)little_monkey Wrote: So far, I have 500 years of scientific investigation saying, there's no evidence of the immaterialism, or a spiritual world, or magic, and determinism is a pretty good foundation for explaining the universe.

No evidence except the existence of mind, you mean, and the experience of free will.

Scientists are working hard now to show that these are both deterministic "byproducts" of the brain-- which to me is a strange idea, but hey, strange happens. The problem is that while you can do observational science on the brain, you can't do it on the mind-- so the whole process is frought with philosophical issues.

Seriously, though. If scientists CAN show some kind of field or something that can be directly observed or manipulated (e.g. by injecting a pink unicorn into my thoughts from a mechanism external to my own brain), I will be highly impressed and well on my way to being convinced.

(July 24, 2013 at 7:01 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(July 24, 2013 at 10:18 am)little_monkey Wrote: So far, I have 500 years of scientific investigation saying, there's no evidence of the immaterialism, or a spiritual world, or magic, and determinism is a pretty good foundation for explaining the universe.

No evidence except the existence of mind, you mean, and the experience of free will.

Scientists are working hard now to show that these are both deterministic "byproducts" of the brain-- which to me is a strange idea, but hey, strange happens. The problem is that while you can do observational science on the brain, you can't do it on the mind-- so the whole process is frought with philosophical issues.

Seriously, though. If scientists CAN show some kind of field or something that can be directly observed or manipulated (e.g. by injecting a pink unicorn into my thoughts from a mechanism external to my own brain), I will be highly impressed and well on my way to being convinced.

I'm quite convinced that one day we will show that the brain is the hardware and mind is the software. By twinkling the hardware at spot X, you will have no choice but to think Y.

(July 24, 2013 at 7:59 pm)little_monkey Wrote: I'm quite convinced that one day we will show that the brain is the hardware and mind is the software. By twinkling the hardware at spot X, you will have no choice but to think Y.

Without a subjective human user, there really is no software: it's just a bunch of fluctuating electrical charges. So in that case, you don't have a duality: you have a trinity. (ooh scary word lol) While the hardware (brain) is necessary to run Windows (mind), you need a third element (the human user) in order to allow Windows to have any meaning. So in your analogy, what/where is that third element?

(July 24, 2013 at 7:01 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Except it isn't. When I hear thunder, I can predict rain with 100% success.

If it so happened that hearing thunder -did- presage rain you'd be on to something. If the prediction panned out reliably you'd be justified in the conclusion that rain follows thunder. We know that it doesn't, of course. That the presence of thunder can - but does not always, indicate rain. Thunder does not satisfy the conditions of "given t" if "t+1" is to be rain. Pretty simple really.

Quote:This definitely does NOT generalize to the idea that all weather behaves predictably.

Why should it?

Quote:Yes, but there are infinitely many unpredictable systems.

Sounds like a guess. I want to see the numbers. Until you have total knowledge that's an unprovable claim. See how useless that is?

Quote:No. It would mean that free will would exert an influence at time t + 1, and that since you cannot predict that influence, the chain of causality is broken.

"Free will" -already- exerts an influence in the deterministic model and we are still capable of making predictions. You see, no matter what "free will" actually is..if it is at all...we are still left with our ability to make successful predictions.

Quote:And we're pretty good at undertanding people, but if you think we've mastered this in a deterministic way, you need to tell me what stock to buy. ;P

There are definitely people and formulas for doing so, but it isn't my thing, so you'd probably want to give those folks a call.

Quote:If you had access to that hidden variable, you could. But "hidden" means you can't.

Well, this is disappointing....I've assumed your hidden variable exists in the here and now and then asked why we are still able to make predictions - if what you say about hidden variables is true, or the chain of causality being broken is true...then our experience should bear out a situation altogether different than the one we currently find ourselves in, wouldn't you say? Why -should- the deterministic model bear so much fruit if a hidden variable can monkey wrench it so absolutely? I think we'd have to invent a pretty elaborate and speculative explanation to address that question if we simply refused to acknowledge the power of the model altogether. Elaborate, and speculative...especially set aside something simple and well evidenced...is usually a no-go for me.

(July 24, 2013 at 9:21 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(July 24, 2013 at 7:59 pm)little_monkey Wrote: I'm quite convinced that one day we will show that the brain is the hardware and mind is the software. By twinkling the hardware at spot X, you will have no choice but to think Y.

Without a subjective human user, there really is no software: it's just a bunch of fluctuating electrical charges. So in that case, you don't have a duality: you have a trinity. (ooh scary word lol) While the hardware (brain) is necessary to run Windows (mind), you need a third element (the human user) in order to allow Windows to have any meaning. So in your analogy, what/where is that third element?

The twinkling can be done but another computer or a robot, so nix the trinity.

But seriously, if I can show that by doing something to spot X on your brain, and all you can think is "eating muffins", and spot Y, "visions of climbing mount Everest", etc. then that would demonstrate that every thought you have is the effect of a cause. Then the debate over determinism is over.