Thread: Determinism Logically Refuted

I'd like to see you do that, Mark.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I don't argue this point. I just don't think it follows that the path we experience as duration is fixed in its unfolding. If anything, I would say the interpenetrating, co-generative quality of force/matter calls the whole "linear" model of time and causality into question.

If instead of a linear, dynamic determinism, you go with a static perspective outside of time (beyond the fourth dimension), you've still failed to account for duration or to prove that the unfolding we witness accounts for all outcomes, much less all possibilities.

Yeah, there are a lot of misconceptions going around.

Theres a difference between determinism and determinacy.

Determinacy says that given the way something determines another there is one way and only one way the second can be.

Determinism says that given a physical system's state, it can assume one and only one state at a latter time.

If A is a certain way, then in regard to this, B will be one certain way. But to say that for event A, there is only one state that can follow, seems to fall into an unnecessary and unfounded determinism.

Originally Posted by memeticverb

Theres a difference between determinism and determinacy.

Determinacy says that given the way something determines another there is one way and only one way the second can be.

Determinism says that given a physical system's state, it can assume one and only one state at a latter time.

The two go hand in hand. I support both of them.

Originally Posted by memeticverb

If A is a certain way, then in regard to this, B will be one certain way. But to say that for event A, there is only one state that can follow, seems to fall into an unnecessary and unfounded determinism.

Then please explain how state A (I am talking about an entire state in terms of positions, velocities, and all other variables.) can result in more than one possible state. If state A results in state B, it could only have resulted in state B. If you disagree, please explain.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Then please explain how state A (I am talking about an entire state in terms of positions, velocities, and all other variables.) can result in more than one possible state. If state A results in state B, it could only have resulted in state B. If you disagree, please explain.

I think this question is best worded with an analogy. How about this?

Say you are playing pool. You take a shot, and miss sinking the 5 ball you were aiming for. Now, if we were to theoretically rewind time and hit the cue ball again in the exact same manner, with the rest of the balls in the exact same positions, and the same room temperature and air pressure and friction on the table, etc. etc., why would the outcome of the shot ever change?

Unless there is some truly random factor involved, the shot should always end up the same way, right?

Originally Posted by thegnome54

I think this question is best worded with an analogy. How about this?

Say you are playing pool. You take a shot, and miss sinking the 5 ball you were aiming for. Now, if we were to theoretically rewind time and hit the cue ball again in the exact same manner, with the rest of the balls in the exact same positions, and the same room temperature and air pressure and friction on the table, etc. etc., why would the outcome of the shot ever change?

Unless there is some truly random factor involved, the shot should always end up the same way, right?

Yes, exactly. Thank you. If there is any kind of answer to that question, I really want to know what it is. I have never once come across it.

Saying that there is more than one possible outcome does not answer the question. I am asking how that idea makes any sense and what would cause one outcome to happen instead of another one. Saying that it does happen or that it happened in an experiment does not answer the question, and giving a supposed example of it does not answer the question. I am looking for an explanation of HOW it could happen.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

I think this question is best worded with an analogy. How about this?

Say you are playing pool. You take a shot, and miss sinking the 5 ball you were aiming for. Now, if we were to theoretically rewind time and hit the cue ball again in the exact same manner, with the rest of the balls in the exact same positions, and the same room temperature and air pressure and friction on the table, etc. etc., why would the outcome of the shot ever change?

Unless there is some truly random factor involved, the shot should always end up the same way, right?

You're operating under the assumption of a closed system with a fixed field of variables--conditions that could, theoretically, be quantified and duplicated in every particular. We have no evidence that our universe is such a system, and the difficulty of creating even a simplistic, subatomic closed system within our universe suggests otherwise.

If you attempted to find all the causes of missing your ball in the world we inhabit--not simply to tell yourself a convincing story about why it happened, but to find every factor influencing the event--they would be literally infinite. The conditions and conditions conditioning the conditions, substructural quanta and cosmological context will grow more detailed and pervasive for as long as you are willing to look. That's the case with a past event, which decidedly is determined, having happened. In the present, at the perpetual event horizon we inhabit, everything manifests collaboratively in a manner that is by definition undetermined. Being unfixed is what distinguishes the present from the ground against which it occurs.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

You're operating under the assumption of a closed system with a fixed field of variables--conditions that could, theoretically, be quantified and duplicated in every particular.

No, it's completely impossible to duplicate the conditions. At the very least, time would have passed. Also, if any of the matter in the universe has moved, the sum of the gravitational forces on the balls would be different. That's why I said "go back in time and redo it".

Originally Posted by Taosaur

If you attempted to find all the causes of missing your ball in the world we inhabit--not simply to tell yourself a convincing story about why it happened, but to find every factor influencing the event--they would be literally infinite. The conditions and conditions conditioning the conditions, substructural quanta and cosmological context will grow more detailed and pervasive for as long as you are willing to look. That's the case with a past event, which decidedly is determined, having happened. In the present, at the perpetual event horizon we inhabit, everything manifests collaboratively in a manner that is by definition undetermined. Being unfixed is what distinguishes the present from the ground against which it occurs.

I think you're missing the point of this question we are asking. Assuming that no interaction/event is truly random, then the present and future should be entirely predictable, given any point in the past.

Do you agree that the billiards would always have the same outcome if EXACTLY replicated? (including time, so if we went back in time and redid it)

If you do, then the same concept should apply to the universe at large, despite the hugeness of the system in question. The issue is not whether or not a human being could predict the future, it's about whether the future is theoretically deterministic.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

No, it's completely impossible to duplicate the conditions. At the very least, time would have passed. Also, if any of the matter in the universe has moved, the sum of the gravitational forces on the balls would be different. That's why I said "go back in time and redo it".

I think you're missing the point of this question we are asking. Assuming that no interaction/event is truly random, then the present and future should be entirely predictable, given any point in the past.

I don't think you understand the question you're asking. Regardless of whether you "rewind time," you're assuming there are distinct, mechanistic forces at work. Your unexamined assumptions amount to circular logic on the order of, "If God gave us a book revealing His word, how can you doubt He exists?" You're asking me, "If the universe is rigidly deterministic, how can you doubt determinism?"

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Do you agree that the billiards would always have the same outcome if EXACTLY replicated? (including time, so if we went back in time and redid it)

To recreate the state of the universe at that time, you would be living in that moment, from which all outcomes would be indeterminate and you might arrive next at any state within reach from there.

So no.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

If you do, then the same concept should apply to the universe at large, despite the hugeness of the system in question. The issue is not whether or not a human being could predict the future, it's about whether the future is theoretically deterministic.

We're always talking about "the universe at large." Nothing we talk about happens outside of it. The issue is whether any present other than the present (i.e. past(s) or future(s)) is present, and my answer is no.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I don't think you understand the question you're asking. Regardless of whether you "rewind time," you're assuming there are distinct, mechanistic forces at work. Your unexamined assumptions amount to circular logic on the order of, "If God gave us a book revealing His word, how can you doubt He exists?" You're asking me, "If the universe is rigidly deterministic, how can you doubt determinism?"



To recreate the state of the universe at that time, you would be living in that moment, from which all outcomes would be indeterminate and you might arrive next at any state within reach from there.

So no.



We're always talking about "the universe at large." Nothing we talk about happens outside of it. The issue is whether any present other than the present (i.e. past(s) or future(s)) is present, and my answer is no.

lol! Good points. Basically they are saying "because it happened this way, it must have happened this way." Which is redundant. But then they make the illogical jump from this redundancy to then say that therefore it could not have occurred any other way.

Originally Posted by memeticverb

lol! Good points. Basically they are saying "because it happened this way, it must have happened this way." Which is redundant. But then they make the illogical jump from this redundancy to then say that therefore it could not have occurred any other way.

You and Taosaur dodged my question. I know you know what it is by now. What is the answer?

We are saying, "Because it happened this way, there was no other way it could have happened," which implies, "Because it happened this way, it would happen the same way again under exactly the same circumstances." We are not saying, "Because it happened this way, we can conclude that it happened this way." We are saying there is only one way it could have happened. Understand? If you think it could happen another way, explain why. The million dollar question is being obsessively dodged. This is philosophy, not dodgeball.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

To recreate the state of the universe at that time, you would be living in that moment, from which all outcomes would be indeterminate and you might arrive next at any state within reach from there.

So no.

WHY????????????????????????????????????

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Saying that there is more than one possible outcome does not answer the question. I am asking how that idea makes any sense and what would cause one outcome to happen instead of another one. Saying that it does happen or that it happened in an experiment does not answer the question, and giving a supposed example of it does not answer the question. I am looking for an explanation of HOW it could happen.

Okay?

Oops, now I'm being redundant too. Theres too much of that I think.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You and Taosaur dodged my question. I know you know what it is by now. What is the answer?

We are saying, "Because it happened this way, there was no other way it could have happened," which implies, "Because it happened this way, it would happen the same way again under exactly the same circumstances." We are not saying, "Because it happened this way, we can conclude that it happened this way." We are saying there is only one way it could have happened. Understand? If you think it could happen another way, explain why. The million dollar question is being obsessively dodged. This is philosophy, not dodgeball.

Your question as posed is illogical, as has already been pointed out.

Since it is impossible for "the exact same circumstances" to obtain you are conjuring up a false universe - as already pointed out by Taosaur.

Originally Posted by memeticverb

Your question as posed is illogical, as has already been pointed out.

Since it is impossible for "the exact same circumstances" to obtain you are conjuring up a false universe - as already pointed out by Taosaur.

If anything it means it's untestable, not illogical. The question itself is perfectly valid. If the outcome was a result of the circumstances, then why, given identical circumstances, would we get different results in multiple runs?

Originally Posted by memeticverb

Your question as posed is illogical, as has already been pointed out.

Since it is impossible for "the exact same circumstances" to obtain you are conjuring up a false universe - as already pointed out by Taosaur.

As Mark pointed out, the impossibility of the situation does not prove the illogic of the hypothetical question. Suppose I ask you, "If a genie gave you three wishes, what would your three wishes be?" It would not be legitimate for you to dodge the question by saying, "Genies are not real." The question involves a hypothetical. Hypothetial questions have legitimate answers even when they involve impossible scenarios. Plus, I have asked the question several different ways. I am not just asking about rewinding a pool shot. That just represents what I am asking.

I know you know what I am trying to understand. How can an exact state of the universe have more than one possible result? What would cause one result to happen instead of another one if both are possible? That is the million dollar question, and it keeps getting dodged.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I know you know what I am trying to understand. How can an exact state of the universe have more than one possible result? What would cause one result to happen instead of another one if both are possible? That is the million dollar question, and it keeps getting dodged.

The universe isn't binary?

No one's dodging your question. We're just pointing out that you have a lot of assumptions bound up in the question, and if we all thought the same thing, this discussion wouldn't be happening at all.

My view: there is no "exact state" of the universe. There's no possibility of capturing a snapshot. Our experience of duration is more akin to a child staring at a cloud, watching a drama transform before its eyes. Instead of a cloud, however, we are the omnifaceted jewel of being staring into itself. The experience is dynamic, but the ground of our being is static, untouchable. The limits of the future are the limits of our imagination, and its significance is the import of our fantasies.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

The universe isn't binary?

No one's dodging your question. We're just pointing out that you have a lot of assumptions bound up in the question, and if we all thought the same thing, this discussion wouldn't be happening at all.

My view: there is no "exact state" of the universe. There's no possibility of capturing a snapshot. Our experience of duration is more akin to a child staring at a cloud, watching a drama transform before its eyes. Instead of a cloud, however, we are the omnifaceted jewel of being staring into itself. The experience is dynamic, but the ground of our being is static, untouchable. The limits of the future are the limits of our imagination, and its significance is the import of our fantasies.

This is what I was getting at. The problem is with the theory of causality. For determinism, they explain causation by reference to earlier and later states, presupposing that the later has occurred before determining the future. I wonder why none of them so far has asked what the nature of causation is? They only have stated implicitly they think whatever causality happens to be it is fixed, and cannot occur without fixed values.

The question for them is: How can they prove that a past with fixed values entails a future that is fixed?

Originally Posted by Taosaur

The universe isn't binary?

Not that I know of, and definitely not in any sense that has relevance to this discussion. Even if there are a trillion incarnations of this universe acting in different ways from each other, I am asking about how a very specific cause can have more than one specific effect without differing variables being introduced.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

No one's dodging your question. We're just pointing out that you have a lot of assumptions bound up in the question, and if we all thought the same thing, this discussion wouldn't be happening at all.

Every supposed assumption that gets pointed out turns out not to be an assumption. How can a specific cause have more than one specific effect? How can X, and only X, result in Y but also in Z? What would cause Z to be the result instead of Y? How many different ways am I going to have to present this before somebody finally gives me a straight answer? You know what I am talking about.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

My view: there is no "exact state" of the universe. There's no possibility of capturing a snapshot. Our experience of duration is more akin to a child staring at a cloud, watching a drama transform before its eyes. Instead of a cloud, however, we are the omnifaceted jewel of being staring into itself. The experience is dynamic, but the ground of our being is static, untouchable. The limits of the future are the limits of our imagination, and its significance is the import of our fantasies.

I am not at all questioning human perception, understanding, or prediction. I am talking about the relationship between cause and effect.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I know you know what I am trying to understand. How can an exact state of the universe have more than one possible result? What would cause one result to happen instead of another one if both are possible? That is the million dollar question, and it keeps getting dodged.

An exact state can have many possible results, but only one actual one.

If A causes B which causes C which causes A, then there is no first cause that sets the chain of linear causes in motion. The universe is at heart a process, not an equation nor a linear chain of causes and effects. Just because certain stages of this process have occurred this does not mean that they couldn't have occurred any other way. Where is the argument to prove otherwise?

Originally Posted by memeticverb

Just because certain stages of this process have occurred this does not mean that they couldn't have occurred any other way.

What you're doing here is merely restating your position, not giving your reasons for it. You have to explain why. If the outcome was a result of the circumstances, then why, given identical circumstances, would we get different results in multiple runs?

Originally Posted by memeticverb

This is what I was getting at. The problem is with the theory of causality. For determinism, they explain causation by reference to earlier and later states, presupposing that the later has occurred before determining the future. I wonder why none of them so far has asked what the nature of causation is? They only have stated implicitly they think whatever causality happens to be it is fixed, and cannot occur without fixed values.

We don't even have to be talking about time. I am asking about the relationship between cause and effect, period. It appears that a state of matter causes the next state of matter in time, as illustrated by physics and chemical equations, but even if that is not the case, I am trying to understand how X, and only X, can cause Y but also Z and what would cause X to result in Z instead of Y. Try very hard not to change the subject. I am really interested in the answer to my question which I have presented about ten different ways now. I have been asking it for half of my life, and I have yet to come across even an attempt at the answer.

The only assumption that the question is making is that there are no truly random factors involved.

The question is, if none of the factors involved are truly random, then what could provide the variation needed to cause more than one future state to be possible?

And for god's sake, it doesn't matter that it's impossible for any human to ever know the current state of the universe. There only has to BE a state, which I can't imagine denying unless you shun objective reality.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

The only assumption that the question is making is that there are no truly random factors involved.

The question is, if none of the factors involved are truly random, then what could provide the variation needed to cause more than one future state to be possible?

And for god's sake, it doesn't matter that it's impossible for any human to ever know the current state of the universe. There only has to BE a state, which I can't imagine denying unless you shun objective reality.

Variation is "caused" by complexity. I'm not sure why you're so frustrated. Randomness is a calculation of our inability to calculate or predict. Of course the past is "objective" in that its determined. That doesn't imply determinism in the future dimension

Are you and UM trying to say that there are no probabilities?

I know it's been said before, but quantum mechanics does have an answer for UM's question, at least to a considerable extent (experiment can never totally prove any theory, but it should at least be the basis of understanding reality).

An oversimplified excerpt from Feynman's lectures on http://vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8

A photon is reflected with probability 'p' from a piece of polished glass some distance 'd' from a second piece of polished glass. 'p' was indicated by the intensity of light observed at a detector set up to measure deflected photons. Photons penetrate the glass with some probability (1-p).

Since all photons of a given frequency and polarization are exactly the same, what causes them to behave differently upon encountering the same piece of glass? One could say the glass has defects, but Isaac Newton correctly discounted this theory based on the fact that light ignores the tiny features on polished glass (or else they'd be useless as lenses). If the features of the surface are not important, then the features below the surface must be. In fact, the gap and the glass thickness does influence p. How could this be?

Newton settled for "fits of transmission," also known as the theory of "I haven't the foggiest idea."

What can determinism say? Perhaps there are hidden variables that we don't know about, but asserting their existence when no evidence exists for them is not appealing. One could point out that such variables are common in classical systems, but this argument by analogy is weak.

What if the random variable thegnome54 mentioned is nothing other than the state of a system, as implied by quantum mechanics?

Sorry for the bold assertions and then the half finished explanations. Busy week.

I want to make it clear that I do not aim to disprove determinism, as without all of the information in the world, that would be impossible (which is also a paradox). As I said, my intent was and is to undermine the theory, since as of now it is the most popular one on this forum and I believe it gets far more credit than it deserves.