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.