Determinism Is Self Defeating

[bennyboy]

Without a subjective human user, there really is no software: it's just a bunch of fluctuating electrical charges. So in that case, you don't have a duality: you have a trinity. (ooh scary word lol) While the hardware (brain) is necessary to run Windows (mind), you need a third element (the human user) in order to allow Windows to have any meaning. So in your analogy, what/where is that third element?

The twinkling can be done but another computer or a robot, so nix the trinity.

No it can't. Another computer just represents an extension to the system. Put one computer watching another run "Windows," and it's still not experiencing Windows.

But seriously, if I can show that by doing something to spot X on your brain, and all you can think is "eating muffins", and spot Y, "visions of climbing mount Everest", etc. then that would demonstrate that every thought you have is the effect of a cause. Then the debate over determinism is over.

You can already do this, just not reliably.

---

Except it isn't. When I hear thunder, I can predict rain with 100% success.

If it so happened that hearing thunder -did- presage rain you'd be on to something. If the prediction panned out reliably you'd be justified in the conclusion that rain follows thunder. We know that it doesn't, of course. That the presence of thunder can - but does not always, indicate rain. Thunder does not satisfy the conditions of "given t" if "t+1" is to be rain. Pretty simple really.

You are missing the point on purpose; this isn't a thread about weather. It also happens that where I live, I have never ever heard thunder except during monsoon rains, so bleagh to you.

This definitely does NOT generalize to the idea that all weather behaves predictably.

Why should it?

It shouldn't and doesn't. Because no number of cases of determinism in identified systems can generalize to global determinism.

Yes, but there are infinitely many unpredictable systems.

Sounds like a guess. I want to see the numbers. Until you have total knowledge that's an unprovable claim. See how useless that is?

I don't need total knowledge to make this particular point. All I need is to show that there are more unpredictable systems than predictable ones. Let's say we take our rock example: we can predict 1 event: rock falling due to gravity and hitting ground. Now, let's take say a flake of iron in that rock, and follow the state of all the particles in it. Obviously, we cannot. Now let's take the next flake of iron over, and calculate the change in state of ITS particles; we still can't. We've already got more unpredictability than predictability.

No. It would mean that free will would exert an influence at time t + 1, and that since you cannot predict that influence, the chain of causality is broken.

"Free will" -already- exerts an influence in the deterministic model and we are still capable of making predictions. You see, no matter what "free will" actually is..if it is at all...we are still left with our ability to make successful predictions.

And we're pretty good at undertanding people, but if you think we've mastered this in a deterministic way, you need to tell me what stock to buy. ;P

There are definitely people and formulas for doing so, but it isn't my thing, so you'd probably want to give those folks a call.

Rough and innacurate statistical model =/= determinism.

If you had access to that hidden variable, you could. But "hidden" means you can't.

Well, this is disappointing....I've assumed your hidden variable exists in the here and now and then asked why we are still able to make predictions - if what you say about hidden variables is true, or the chain of causality being broken is true...then our experience should bear out a situation altogether different than the one we currently find ourselves in, wouldn't you say? Why -should- the deterministic model bear so much fruit if a hidden variable can monkey wrench it so absolutely? I think we'd have to invent a pretty elaborate and speculative explanation to address that question if we simply refused to acknowledge the power of the model altogether. Elaborate, and speculative...especially set aside something simple and well evidenced...is usually a no-go for me.

I'm not sure why you think a butterfly effect is equivalent to a monkey wrench.

And if you don't believe in hidden variables, then tell me where the Big Bang comes from.