Determinism Is Self Defeating

[bennyboy]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

---

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.

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

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!