Determinism Is Self Defeating

[The Grand Nudger]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.