Determinism Is Self Defeating

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

Its just a strong indication that things -do- seem to behave in a deterministic manner. Maybe the water doesn't level next time, maybe the growth inhibitor has the opposite effect, maybe rounds fired don't end up where we expect them, and maybe our marketing pros are just "super good guessers" - however........these are the unknown unknowns. We can't tease any sort of explanation out of such a thing.

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?"

Determinism isn't a position on how accurately we are capable of making measurements (and this is why even QM is deterministic). It's about whether such predictions are possible. A successful prediction is as strong as positive evidence can be. A successful prediction shows that what was once immeasurable (for whatever reason) can now be measured with enough accuracy to determine at the least - that such predictions are possible. Of course we have different standards, you've engineered an impossible set of standards - I fail to see how they apply, or why we would be surprised if those requirements hadn't been met..

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;

Which isn't a problem.

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.

They may confound me, but so long as we can keep our heads screwed on tight they appear to behave in a deterministic manner. The point at which we lose focus and ability says nothing about what the billiards balls are doing beyond that point. Sure, we could imagine that at that very moment (or some moment thereafter) they suddenly change tack and behave in non-deterministic ways for reason unknown.....sure....we -could- imagine that....

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.

There's that word "complete" again, despite this being at least the second time I've addressed both the requirement itself, and it's inapplicability. What you described would be a very excellent test -of our ability to take measurements-. Wheres the concession to the ball falling away from earth, or levitating, or disappearing, or doing none of the above but somehow violating everything we think we "know" in a mysterious way? In any case, that a prediction is even possible -is evidence for determinism-, as I've already explained.

[bennyboy]

Okay, then I guess this can come to a peaceful end: I don't accept your definition of determinism, and I don't accept the kind of evidence that you are talking about as sufficiently supporting my definition of determinism.

[little_monkey]

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.

"God does not play dice with the universe." - Einstein

[Zen Badger]

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).

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)?

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).

The point that I'm making is that as a theory determinism can only be proven by making accurate predictions, the rock rolling down the hill for instance.
Until that time it can only be regarded as a hypothesis.

Or are we just going to toss the concept of scientific scrutiny out the window?

[Red Celt]

The point that I'm making is that as a theory determinism can only be proven by making accurate predictions, the rock rolling down the hill for instance.
Until that time it can only be regarded as a hypothesis.

Or are we just going to toss the concept of scientific scrutiny out the window?

The burden of proof would be in your hands. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Prove non-determinism. Show us the non-material hand altering the path of the billiard balls.

Try re-reading what you posted, while replacing "determinism" with "evolution"... and you might see how your position looks to a determinist.

[Zen Badger]

The point that I'm making is that as a theory determinism can only be proven by making accurate predictions, the rock rolling down the hill for instance.
Until that time it can only be regarded as a hypothesis.

Or are we just going to toss the concept of scientific scrutiny out the window?

The burden of proof would be in your hands. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Prove non-determinism. Show us the non-material hand altering the path of the billiard balls.

Try re-reading what you posted, while replacing "determinism" with "evolution"... and you might see how your position looks to a determinist.

Ummm, no I don't.

The simple fact that emergent systems are unpredictable implies a non-deterministic universe.

Your turn.

[Red Celt]

Ummm, no I don't.

The simple fact that emergent systems are unpredictable implies a non-deterministic universe.

Your turn.

My turn? Well, I'll have to replay a hand that I've already played. You're confusing determinism with predictability.

In all likelihood, in order to predict everything in the universe, you'd need a computer the size of the universe... which would itself have to be included in the predictability calculations. Being able to predict something is not a primary concern of the truth of determinism.

Let's imagine that we have 2 neighbouring rooms. In each is a table. On each table there is a Newton's Cradle. They are both set in motion and the doors of the rooms are closed. In one room there is also a cat.

You seem to imagine that determinism can only happen in the room with the cat, because it is sentient and (after observing what is happening) it can predict that each end ball will raise when it's opposite number lands.

Both rooms experience determinism. Prediction not required.

Your turn.

[Zen Badger]

Ummm, no I don't.

The simple fact that emergent systems are unpredictable implies a non-deterministic universe.

Your turn.

My turn? Well, I'll have to replay a hand that I've already played. You're confusing determinism with predictability.

In all likelihood, in order to predict everything in the universe, you'd need a computer the size of the universe... which would itself have to be included in the predictability calculations. Being able to predict something is not a primary concern of the truth of determinism.

Let's imagine that we have 2 neighbouring rooms. In each is a table. On each table there is a Newton's Cradle. They are both set in motion and the doors of the rooms are closed. In one room there is also a cat.

You seem to imagine that determinism can only happen in the room with the cat, because it is sentient and (after observing what is happening) it can predict that each end ball will raise when it's opposite number lands.

Both rooms experience determinism. Prediction not required.

Your turn.

Maybe I'm not making myself clear......

In order for YOU to prove that determinism is true, YOU need to be able to make 100% accurate predictions. Until these conditions are met determinism is only a hypothesis. This is known as "science".

At no point have I suggested that determinism requires sentient beings to function.

[bennyboy]

The point that I'm making is that as a theory determinism can only be proven by making accurate predictions, the rock rolling down the hill for instance.
Until that time it can only be regarded as a hypothesis.

Or are we just going to toss the concept of scientific scrutiny out the window?

The burden of proof would be in your hands. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Prove non-determinism. Show us the non-material hand altering the path of the billiard balls.

Try re-reading what you posted, while replacing "determinism" with "evolution"... and you might see how your position looks to a determinist.

The BOP hot-potato game is a cop-out. So is the red-herring of dubbing opposing opinions "extraordinary claims." There's nothing extraordinary in supposing that since many systems cannot be calculated, either they are not deterministic, or at least cannot be proven so.

Particularly annoying (and wrong) is the following logic:
Determinist: I can predict what time the sun will come up. This gives at least some evidential support for determinism.
Non-determinist: Okay, predict where the sun's spots will be this time next year.
D: I could, if I knew the states of all the particles in the sun, and had a powerful enough computer.
ND: That represents a statement of faith, and is probably not knowable even theoretically.
D: That's an argument from ignorance. What evidence have YOU got? BOP on you, since I've at least provided SOME kind of evidence for my position.

The problem with this is that D is arguing a GENERAL theory with specific examples that don't generalize well; in other words, they are anecdotal. There's no reason to think that predicting the sun's rising time has any relationship to predicting market trends 10 years from now, or where the sun's spots will be. Or how a person's decision processes (which seem fairly deterministic in the short term) will arrive at a certain state of being a few years (or even a few days) from now.

Nor is there any reason to believe that it is physically POSSIBLE to achieve a computer that will have the power to calculate such complex systems. The only computer theoretically capable of calculating all the influences of ALL the particles in the universe (gravity, anyone?) on each other is the universe itself.

Physicists, question for you: is it possible to predict exactly when/where particles pop into existence from "empty" space, and what their attributes will be when they do so?

[Red Celt]

Maybe I'm not making myself clear......

In order for YOU to prove that determinism is true, YOU need to be able to make 100% accurate predictions. Until these conditions are met determinism is only a hypothesis. This is known as "science".

At no point have I suggested that determinism requires sentient beings to function.

No. You very much didn't make yourself clear. I certainly wasn't aware that I was (for some reason) being expected to prove determinism to be true. As with evolution, it is the most likely situation... given all available evidence.

You think otherwise. You also haven't proven that position. But I guess that I'm the bad guy for being the only one that needs proof.