Determinism Is Self Defeating

[Red Celt]

Let me reiterate for the slow of comprehension.(I'm typing slowly so you can keep up)

Until such a time as you can make predictions that are 100% accurate then determinism is merely a hypothesis.

Do not equate evolution with determinism. They are not even in the same ballpark when it comes to evidence.

You could always type even slower whilst answering my questions. If that'd help.

Ego is a harsh mistress, eh, Zen Badger? You had the opportunity of admitting that you believe in supernatural forces altering the material world... or that you were wrong... but hell, no. Mustn't admit to any kind of defeat.

It reminds me of theistic dogmatism.

If that's your bag, then so be it.

[bennyboy]

Let me reiterate for the slow of comprehension.(I'm typing slowly so you can keep up)

Until such a time as you can make predictions that are 100% accurate then determinism is merely a hypothesis.

Do not equate evolution with determinism. They are not even in the same ballpark when it comes to evidence.

You could always type even slower whilst answering my questions. If that'd help.

Ego is a harsh mistress, eh, Zen Badger? You had the opportunity of admitting that you believe in supernatural forces altering the material world... or that you were wrong... but hell, no. Mustn't admit to any kind of defeat.

It reminds me of theistic dogmatism.

If that's your bag, then so be it.

That's the second time that I've seen you use this argument: "You could have admitted you're wrong. I tried." The problem is, you haven't proven your position, and so there's no reason for him to admit any such thing. When someone believes a position without being able to prove it, and pushes hard for that position to be the default, that pretty much defines dogma. So you might want to look in the mirror, there.

I don't think anybody said a magical fairy guides the material world, making it indeterminate. People are challenging your view of what nature is, and of how the material world works; they aren't even really saying that your view is known to be wrong-- only that it's unprovable. Conflating this natural skepticism with a strawman argument about woo-ism isn't really debating: it's an admission of an inability to debate. So if you're such a champion of science, why don't you show us what science you've either done or researched supporting your position? Otherwise, Zen and others will rightly concluded that you're speaking on a hunch, just like everyone else who enjoys discussing this kind of philosophical question.

[Red Celt]

That's the second time that I've seen you use this argument: "You could have admitted you're wrong. I tried." The problem is, you haven't proven your position, and so there's no reason for him to admit any such thing. When someone believes a position without being able to prove it, and pushes hard for that position to be the default, that pretty much defines dogma. So you might want to look in the mirror, there.

I don't think anybody said a magical fairy guides the material world, making it indeterminate. People are challenging your view of what nature is, and of how the material world works; they aren't even really saying that your view is known to be wrong-- only that it's unprovable. Conflating this natural skepticism with a strawman argument about woo-ism isn't really debating: it's an admission of an inability to debate. So if you're such a champion of science, why don't you show us what science you've either done or researched supporting your position? Otherwise, Zen and others will rightly concluded that you're speaking on a hunch, just like everyone else who enjoys discussing this kind of philosophical question.

I'm just so very tired of stupidity. I asked some questions... some very unambiguous questions that shouldn't have been a problem for anyone approaching this with sincerity. He ignored them. Ask yourself why he ignored them.

He then said that the rock-on-the-hill would prove determinism... which it most certainly would not. It is a nonsense question, because (as I explained) it is merely a matter of the laws of physics. We could predict the path of the rock, but that wouldn't answer other questions about determinism (such as QM and fuzzy logic).

So, he's fucking stupid.

And it tires me.

K? K.

[Zen Badger]

Fucking stupid......

Why? Because I hold determinism to the same standards of scientific rigour as other theories?

So be it then, I'm fucking stupid then.

But you are the one who first resorted to personal attacks when you couldn't prove your point( calling Koolay stupid)'

[Red Celt]

Fucking stupid......

Why? Because I hold determinism to the same standards of scientific rigour as other theories?

So be it then, I'm fucking stupid then.

But you are the one who first resorted to personal attacks when you couldn't prove your point( calling Koolay stupid)'

Suddenly, that's a matter that is under dispute?

You still haven't answered my questions.

And, if scientific rigour is at the heart of all of this, you must also believe that there's a giant teapot orbiting the Earth. I mean... we haven't proven it not to be true, so it must be true.

[Zen Badger]

Fucking stupid......

Why? Because I hold determinism to the same standards of scientific rigour as other theories?

So be it then, I'm fucking stupid then.

But you are the one who first resorted to personal attacks when you couldn't prove your point( calling Koolay stupid)'

Suddenly, that's a matter that is under dispute?

You still haven't answered my questions.

And, if scientific rigour is at the heart of all of this, you must also believe that there's a giant teapot orbiting the Earth. I mean... we haven't proven it not to be true, so it must be true.

Suddenly?
That is what I've been saying all along.

However, based on the the evidence that has been presented so far, I've drawn the conclusion that you are in fact only interested in being an argumentative ass and not in reasonable and informed debate.

So therefore I'm putting you on ignore.

Goodbye asshole

---

]

If indeterminism is true, then how can we verify it?
Why is it that indeterminists only pick cases where the system is so complex that no computer available today could hold the geometry of that system, let alone process how it works?
For any simple enough system, we can develop even simpler models that can be computed and the results of such computations approximate extremely well the observed behavior of that system. This is a horizontal observation from the tiniest of systems to the largest.... they can be determined, provided the models used are valid. (electron orbits around nucleus; planets/comet orbits around stars)

But we don't have to go to the whole universe in order to disprove determinism.

Think of the simplest system imaginable, flipping a coin.

You know all of the initial conditions and there are only two possible outcomes( discounting the direction the coin will be facing when It comes to rest)

Yet there is no equation you can write which will predict the outcome to better than 50%, even modelling it will yield no better.

Now flip that coin a thousand times and accurately predict the outcome of every single coin toss.

And then figure in the direction the coin will be facing each time, there's another 360 variables you need to figure into your equation.

See my point now?

Even if the universe is deterministic it is an unprovable hypothesis.

But there is plenty of reason to believe that the universe is chaotic.

As an aside, modelling a system is not a prediction, it is simply running a simulation to see what the outcome will be.

[pocaracas]

A chaotic system is a deterministic system. It's just extremely sensitive to the initial conditions.
That is,a small change to the initial conditions leads to a dramatically different outcome.
Just like the coin toss experiment: we'd require accurate knowledge of the energy transferred to the coin and that is not available if we use a finger... unless you train it really well...
Standard random number generators use equations which operate on the principle of chaos:a small change in the seed value less to a completely different result, a so called pseudo random value arises.
The appearance of randomness is then an illusion... I have no reason to consider that natural systems'apparent randomness is that much different.
Hence, as it is with the god hypothesis, I attribute it a very low probability of being correct and assume the opposite: determinism.

[Zen Badger]

How do you come to the conclusion that determinism is the opposite of god?

[pocaracas]

How do you come to the conclusion that determinism is the opposite of god?

I don't and didn't.
I merely made a comparison between the likelihood of both events in a (apparently) futile attempt to get my point across a bit better

[Zen Badger]

My apologies then, that's the way I read your statement.

But the single biggest counter to a deterministic universe in my view is the ability of a sentient creature to choose a course of action that is in defiance of all prediction and reason.

And really that is the meaning of free will, not that can we can do whatever we feel like regardless of physical restraints.

But that we can make a choice regardless of the consequences, even in spite of them.

But as to a deterministic universe, it may well be the case. But until such a time as evidence can be provided then I have no good reason to accept it.( much like god really)