Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How determined are you?
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 1 of 64 (255969)
11-01-2005 9:17 AM


In reponse to a request from nwr I've posted this here
There is, as far as we know, only matter in various forms, energy in various forms, laws of nature of various types. The laws of nature are taken to be immutable. And matter and energy simply conform to the laws of nature in predictable (if yet unknown) ways. That's all the evidence we have about the universe.
If that is the case, the arrangement of every atom in the universe at this precise moment is a result only: of the interaction between the atoms themselves + the energy acting upon and within them + the laws of nature which caused them to be arranged in the particular pattern they held at the precise moment I mentioned a minute ago... things have moved on a little since then
The arrangement of every atom / condition of every piece of energy at this instant, is a direct result of the arrangement in the instant before. IOW, whatever the arrangement was then was such so as to ensure that the arrangement in the next instant would be the one that would exist. There is nothing outside matter/energy/law to cause it to be any other way.
If every arrangement of atoms/energy at any point in time is inevitably the result of some prior arrangement then we can go back until we arrive at the initial conditions which set it all off. These initial conditions can be picked arbitarily. 1 second ago, 1 year ago, a million years ago. It doesn't matter. At whatever point we draw a line, all subsequent arrangements of atoms;/energy were going to be whatever they transpired to be.
Thus, there is no such thing as independant thought or action. Every thought or action was going to happen from whatever arrangement existed at say, a million years ago.
This is what I call Determinism. If Determinisn is the way it is, then there is no absolute thing as you. 'You' are just an particular arrangement of matter/energy/laws - and every thought and action of yours is not yours - it's just another inevitable arrangement of atoms/energy - which was bound to happen from whatever initial conditions existed (whenever it is you draw a start line). Similarily, whatever thought you may have tomorrow is going to happen as a result of the arrangement of atoms/energy as they are now
Topics for discussion:
If this brand of Determinism is the reality, how could it be that blind initial conditions resulted in a pre-determined arrangement of matter/energy/laws (us) arriving at the conclusion that they are a pre-determined arrangement of matter/energy/laws.
If folk think everything isn't pre-determined along the lines laid out above, on what basis to they hold the view they do?
This message has been edited by iano, 01-Nov-2005 04:09 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminPhat, posted 11-01-2005 10:37 AM iano has not replied
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 11-01-2005 5:05 PM iano has not replied
 Message 6 by crashfrog, posted 11-01-2005 5:12 PM iano has not replied
 Message 7 by dsv, posted 11-01-2005 5:30 PM iano has not replied
 Message 8 by paisano, posted 11-01-2005 5:35 PM iano has not replied
 Message 9 by 1.61803, posted 11-01-2005 5:47 PM iano has not replied
 Message 10 by nwr, posted 11-01-2005 5:51 PM iano has not replied
 Message 20 by Dr Jack, posted 11-02-2005 5:03 AM iano has not replied
 Message 39 by sidelined, posted 11-02-2005 10:57 AM iano has replied

  
AdminPhat
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 64 (255990)
11-01-2005 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by iano
11-01-2005 9:17 AM


Say what?
Iano, I read this O.P. with interest...it certainly sounds as if young Guidosoft has got your wheels spinning...but I find the focus a bit murky and obtuse. What IS this topic about? Is it quantum physics? Is it determinism revived? Is it philosophy?
At this point I would not have a clue where to put it. Can you rewrite it and clarify the direction that you want to go with it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by iano, posted 11-01-2005 9:17 AM iano has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 3 of 64 (256010)
11-01-2005 11:10 AM


Dunno if that helps Phat but it's a kind of a brain-twister no matter what happens. I've no idea where it should go but seeing as determinism is a belief system then Faith and Belief would be appropriate I guess.
There's a couple of folk who replied to the original so I guess there is enough to get it going in itself
Cheers
Iano

  
AdminPhat
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 64 (256061)
11-01-2005 5:00 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 5 of 64 (256063)
11-01-2005 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by iano
11-01-2005 9:17 AM


There are some seriosu problems wiht what you write.
Firstly it is far from certain that matter and energy behave deterministically. There is no useful deterministic theory of Quantum Mechanics.
Secondly, determinism is not identical with predestination.
Thirdly I hope that my mind (and yours) operates deterministically or largely so - because te alternative is worse. The question is not how we could work things out if we did behave largely determinisitcally - the real problem is how we could do so if we did not.e

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by iano, posted 11-01-2005 9:17 AM iano has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 6 of 64 (256064)
11-01-2005 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by iano
11-01-2005 9:17 AM


If folk think everything isn't pre-determined along the lines laid out above, on what basis to they hold the view they do?
On the basis that the fundamental laws of the universe are not deterministic. God does play dice with the universe, as they say.
If this brand of Determinism is the reality, how could it be that blind initial conditions resulted in a pre-determined arrangement of matter/energy/laws (us) arriving at the conclusion that they are a pre-determined arrangement of matter/energy/laws.
If that's what they are, why would they arrive at any other conclusion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by iano, posted 11-01-2005 9:17 AM iano has not replied

  
dsv
Member (Idle past 4723 days)
Posts: 220
From: Secret Underground Hideout
Joined: 08-17-2004


Message 7 of 64 (256066)
11-01-2005 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by iano
11-01-2005 9:17 AM


The arrangement of every atom / condition of every piece of energy at this instant, is a direct result of the arrangement in the instant before.
Quantum mechanics is deterministic, provided that you accept the wave function itself as reality rather than as probability of classical coordinates.
If this brand of Determinism is the reality, how could it be that blind initial conditions resulted in a pre-determined arrangement of matter/energy/laws (us) arriving at the conclusion that they are a pre-determined arrangement of matter/energy/laws.
You're sitting at your computer. Smile.
I just made that happen (if, of course, you actually did it). Does that make the universe determinable? Not necessarily. We could trace back events to infinity if we had a time machine. The only way to make it known is by predicting the future accurately.
Furthermore, if there has been even one indeterministic event since the beginning of time, determinism is false.
If folk think everything isn't pre-determined along the lines laid out above, on what basis to they hold the view they do?
Certainly if everyone was held to determinism there would be no real morality. We couldn't punish people. An evil universe must have started at the beginning of time. Are you sure?
Without allowing variables along the way -- singularity to present time -- the first atom is defining our lives. That seems... unreasonable.
This message has been edited by dsv, Tuesday, November 01, 2005 05:32 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by iano, posted 11-01-2005 9:17 AM iano has not replied

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 6422 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 8 of 64 (256068)
11-01-2005 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by iano
11-01-2005 9:17 AM


To develop a coherent discussion from this premise of determinism would essentially require ignoring just about every development in physics since about 1920 or so, not only in quantum mechanics but in chaos theory and nonlinear dynamics.
For the idea that the universe is deterministic at all levels is seriously vitiated by developments in these fields.
Indeed, I often wonder why religious folks from those sects that oppose evolutionary theory, don't go after modern physics with equal gusto, as its conclusions are at least as disquieting to their theological underpinnings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by iano, posted 11-01-2005 9:17 AM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by nator, posted 11-02-2005 8:59 AM paisano has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 9 of 64 (256070)
11-01-2005 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by iano
11-01-2005 9:17 AM


butterflys and (weather) it matters
Take a course in Caos theory and you will be a changed man!!!!! heh, no pun intended. ;D
It seems the universe is both deterministic and caotic.
Reality it seems does not want to be pigeon holed or probed to deeply. The most one can say about determinism is that intial conditions can never be repeated. So the point is sort of moot? maybe?.
Just ask any pool player or bowler.
I got into a argument sometime ago with some bright fellow on EVC about "what is close enough" When does Schrodinger equations and knowing the wave function down to the bazillionth decimal place not close enough.???? My answer was that over time regardless of the descripency the outcome is different. Nothing can be said to be 100 percent deterministic if even the most infintesimal probability of change is present.
Who knows though maybe close does count in other things besides horseshoes and hand granades. Peace be with you. **edit my horrible mispelling of Schrodinger
This message has been edited by 1.61803, 11-01-2005 05:57 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by iano, posted 11-01-2005 9:17 AM iano has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 10 of 64 (256072)
11-01-2005 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by iano
11-01-2005 9:17 AM


Hi iano
When I suggested a thread on determinism, I didn't mean to see you besieged with multiple responses. So I'll keep this short. Others have already commented that there are reasons to doubt that we really live in a wholly determined universe.
Boyle's law applies exactly to ideal gasses. But real gasses are not ideal. Hooke's law applies exactly to ideally elastic materials. But real materials are not ideally elastic.
Many of our scientific laws are deterministic, because deterministic laws are easier to work with. But our laws do not completely and exactly describe the world. There is plenty of room for indeterminism to be present.
Roughly speaking, determinism is the thesis that if we could rewind the tape, and play it all over again, the exact same things would happen. We never can rewind and replay the tape. And therefore there never could be certain evidence of determinism or of indeterminism.
For myself, I don't believe we live in a deterministic world. I am skeptical of predestination. I am skeptical of the claim that God can foreknow the future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by iano, posted 11-01-2005 9:17 AM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by robinrohan, posted 11-01-2005 5:59 PM nwr has not replied
 Message 13 by 1.61803, posted 11-01-2005 6:17 PM nwr has replied
 Message 14 by Chiroptera, posted 11-01-2005 6:48 PM nwr has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 64 (256074)
11-01-2005 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by nwr
11-01-2005 5:51 PM


I am skeptical of the claim that God can foreknow the future.
Me too. The God I don't believe in doesn't know everything. He can't because all experience tells us we have free will.
In answer to the general question, "How determined are you?," I consider myself a pretty determined individual.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 11-01-2005 04:59 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by nwr, posted 11-01-2005 5:51 PM nwr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-01-2005 6:09 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 64 (256078)
11-01-2005 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by robinrohan
11-01-2005 5:59 PM


just another example
I just copied this from the other thread if you do want to reply. Its not much different from what others have said other than the concrete example, boiling water.
quote:
I think the flaw in your theory has been pointed out but I'll tell you in another way.
The position everything is in now this instant is a result of the position everything was in in the last instant. There is nothing outside matter/energy/law to cause it to be any other way.
This is not true.
If you boil water, the molecules will follow a series of 'random walks' (googlable). Press rewind and let it boil again and the molecules will not be in all the same positions. There is an element of randomness that is not pre-determined.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by robinrohan, posted 11-01-2005 5:59 PM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by ohnhai, posted 11-01-2005 9:07 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 13 of 64 (256080)
11-01-2005 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by nwr
11-01-2005 5:51 PM


Hi nwr.
nwr writes:
I am skeptical of predestination. I am skeptical of the claim that God can foreknow the future.
How about the claim that knowing the future does not defeat freewill. Kinda like I know I am going to type this next sentence.
But I still have the choice in what I type.
According to some beliefs, I have heard, time references such as the past, or present, or future are human constructs that are necessary for humans to communicate and operate in a universe rooted in 4 dimentions.
BUT............(here it comes..so dont roll your eyes!)
If a omnipotent entity exist....lets call it...ummm...God.
Then why couldnt such a entity not be omniscient of all and also
able to allow for choices to be made. Knowing the choice made does not mean the chooser had no choice. To God everything just is, no time no past..no future. Or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by nwr, posted 11-01-2005 5:51 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by nwr, posted 11-01-2005 8:53 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 64 (256086)
11-01-2005 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by nwr
11-01-2005 5:51 PM


quote:
I am skeptical of the claim that God can foreknow the future.
Heh. Don't tell cavediver. He believes the entire 4-dimensional universe exists all at once, as a single 4-manifold.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by nwr, posted 11-01-2005 5:51 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by nwr, posted 11-01-2005 9:02 PM Chiroptera has not replied
 Message 23 by cavediver, posted 11-02-2005 6:32 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 15 of 64 (256105)
11-01-2005 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by 1.61803
11-01-2005 6:17 PM


How about the claim that knowing the future does not defeat freewill.
The idea that determinism still allows free will is known as compatibilism. I vacillate over that. But knowing the future is a little stronger than determinism, and I don't see how to square that with free will. I see Newcomb's paradox as creating a serious problem for that.
Then why couldnt such a entity not be omniscient of all and also
able to allow for choices to be made. Knowing the choice made does not mean the chooser had no choice. To God everything just is, no time no past..no future. Or not.
This has been long debated (as the theology of predestination). But I can't square it with Newcomb's paradox.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by 1.61803, posted 11-01-2005 6:17 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by 1.61803, posted 11-02-2005 11:22 AM nwr has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024