Determinism Logically Refuted

Unfinished
Saving thread so that I don't lose everything, since I'm on a work computer. Feel free to comment but there is a whole shit load of more information that still needs to go in here.

Introduction

A very good definition for determinism, given by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is stated as,

"Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law."

I am going to do my best to attempt to show two things. The first thing I am going to attempt to show is that given a specified way things are at a time t, multiple outcomes are possible, and the second thing I am going to attempt to show is that it is perhaps even impossible to conclusively prove that the idea of a 'specified way things are' is even a valid concept. I will do my best to present my arguments in a clear and ordered way so that it is easy to understand. I will also do my best to segment my argument in to clear parts so that one can skip over the concepts that he or she is already familiar with/ can't be arsed to read about.

A common belief held by those that believe in a deterministic universe was best summed up by A french Philosopher named Pierre-Simon, marquis de Laplace. He said that,

"We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes."(Laplace, Essai philosophique, 1814)

It seems as though this is a logical belief based on what we know about the world, and indeed it is if we only take classical physics in to account (which is all that was known to Laplace at the time.) Unfortunately, relatively recent theoretical and experimental progress in the fields of mathematics and Quantum Mechanics have shown this claim to be definitely false as far as our understanding as humans is concerned.

In the sections that follow I will outline the concepts of the General Uncertainty Principle, Chaos Theory, Superpositions/Wave-Particle duality, Quantum Entanglement, and Quantum Foam. The emperically verified ideas behind the General Uncertainty Principle alone are enough to disprove Laplace's claim, but I believe the conjuction of all of these topics can be used to significantly undermine the theory of determinism as a whole. Each of these subjects are weigthy in themselves, but I will do my best to briefly outline them one by one so that anyone who cares to read will have a better understanding of what I am trying to portray.

General Uncertainty Principle

Because it is the easiest way to show Laplace's claim to be false, I will begin with Uncertainty.

The Uncertainty Principle was originally introduced by German physicist Werner Heisenberg in 1927, which is why it is often refered to as Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. He discovered the concept while examining experimental measurements of the positions and momentums of electrons. The positions of electrons are measured by firing photons at them and then observing how the photons are scattered (otherwise known as "shining a light on them") Unfortunately, the photon rebounding off of the electron causes a change in the electrons momentum. The shorter the wavelength of light that is used to observe the electron, the more precise the measurement of its position will be, but shorter wavelengths carry more energy and so will have a larger and less predictable effect on the electrons momentum. This is the beginning of the basic relationship between the position and momentum of an electron in which the more precisely the position is defined, the more poorly the momentum will be defined and vice versa.

It has been found that this phenomenon isn't even due to the actual measurements being taken and is intrinsic in the behavior of the electron. Even if you were to conduct an experiment in which many particles are set up in a similar fashion so that they can be said to be identical (are in the same quantum states) and then measured the position of half of them and the momentum of half of them you would find the same relationship. The group in which you measured the position would give an array of results and from this you could find the standard deviation, which is the average variation from the mean position, and the same would be true for the momentum. The smaller the standard deviation found in the position group, the larger the deviation would be in the momentum group. Heisenberg summed this up by saying, "This indeterminateness is to be considered an essential characteristic of the electron, and not as evidence of the inapplicability of the wave picture."

Since Heisenberg, other physicists have discovered that this relationship applies to many pairs of characteristics of quantum states and not only position and momentum.

What this all means for Laplace is that no being could possibly know every aspect of the movements and the position of all that exists in the universe at any given point in time, and so his interpretation of determinism is false, and at the very least determinism is ill equipped to make accurate predictions about the state of the entirity of any system at any given point in time.

Wave-Particle Duality

Quantum Entanglement

Quantum Foam

Chaos Theory


Bibliography

I've included several sources on these topics in order to make sure I used the correct dates and names, and also so that anyone who is interested can read some more indepth descriptions and check the validity of the concepts I've outlined above.

The Uncertainty Principle, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Causal Determinism, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Feynmen Double Slit experiment
Chaos Theory, a brief Introduction
Quantum Foam, New Scientist 19 June 1999
Wheeler's Delayed Choice Experiment, Ross Rhodes

For anyone who might be interested in this, I'm going to be finishing it later on today after I get home from work and possibly get some sleep in.

This is wrong in some many levels.

Quote:

---

The first thing I am going to attempt to show is that given a specified way things are at a time t, multiple outcomes are possible

---

This is useless, chaos theory says that things are really sensitive to initial condition. However, note the word possible. Ofcourse things are possible, however that can't be used against something being only possible.

Quote:

---

and the second thing I am going to attempt to show is that it is perhaps even impossible to conclusively prove that the idea of a 'specified way things are' is even a valid concept.

---

Clarity please.
First off all what do you mean prove, do you mean mathematically prove. If you mean scientifically, then read Popper. Not being provable does not make something false.

Quote:

---

Unfortunately, relatively recent theoretical and experimental progress in the fields of mathematics and Quantum Mechanics have shown this claim to be definitely false as far as our understanding as humans is concerned.

---

No it hasen't.

Quote:

---

The emperically verified ideas behind the General Uncertainty Principle alone are enough to disprove Laplace's claim

---

No it hasen't. Not being able to measure something on a quantum level does not disprove determinism.

Quote:

---

It has been found that this phenomenon isn't even due to the actual measurements being taken and is intrinsic in the behavior of the electron.

---

debateable

Quote:

---

What this all means for Laplace is that no being could possibly know every aspect of the movements and the position of all that exists in the universe at any given point in time, and so his interpretation of determinism is false, and at the very least determinism is ill equipped to make accurate predictions about the state of the entirity of any system at any given point in time.

---

Actually, no. Determinism does not say it can predict the future, it just say that

Quote:

---

Determinism is the philosophical proposition that every event, including human cognition and behavior, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences

---

I`m curious to see how you're going to use quantum entanglement, quantum foam, and wave-particle duality to argue your point, because with my (limited) understanding of them, I just don't see that working. I think wendylove pretty much covered what I would have said. I will just reiterate, you are not arguing against determinism, you are arguing against fatalism, though I don't think you have done that successfully yet.

Laplace's point was entirely hypothetical. Of course nobody could ever know everything happening in the universe. Nobody could even know everything that is happening in a blade of grass. He was just saying that if somebody could know everything that is happening in the universe and have a perfect understanding of all of the laws of physics and how they pertain to specific outcomes, then the future could be predicted to the letter. That hypothetical involves a scenario that is incredibly unrealistic, but I think his point is correct. Determinism is not about knowledge. It is about the inevitability of a specific future.

I don't claim to be an expert on the Heisenberg Principle, but it seems Heisenberg was talking about human inability to predict particle behavior. I have never understood how he went from that to saying determinism is false. The limits of human knowledge do not prove that the future is not already determined. It seems he was saying that because not all of the variables involved in particle activity differences can be identified, they don't exist. Physicists need to keep searching for those variables because they definitely exist. They would have to.

If event A causes event B sometimes and event C other times, there must also be an event or events causing the difference. A would not cause B sometimes and just happen to cause C other times with no causal basis for the difference. That scenario would involve the uncaused event of C happening instead of B. There must be a cause. That is true at every step of every situation in the universe. Therefore, there is only one way the future can happen. We are not going to just happen to get future X instead of future Y without anything causing it to go that way instead. If uncaused events could happen, order would not exist. The universe would be more random and absurd than a Magritte painting.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0hAxUTGincM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

What this all means for Laplace is that no being could possibly know every aspect of the movements and the position of all that exists in the universe at any given point in time, and so his interpretation of determinism is false, and at the very least determinism is ill equipped to make accurate predictions about the state of the entirity of any system at any given point in time.

---

Laplace's interpretation of determinism requires the electrons to have both a position and a momentum at any point in time. It does not require these to be easy for humans to measure.

I don't really understand how the inability of human observers to accurately measure things implies that the things themselves do not have a specific value at any point in time.

Am I missing something?

Quote:

---

Determinism is the philosophical proposition that every event, including human cognition and behavior, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences

---

For purposes of clarity, I want to point out that this definition of determinism encompasses all unbroken chains of prior occurrences. Galton's board (pegs arranged in an equilateral triangle) brings up an interesting question: each possible "choice" that the ball encounters as it hits the pegs is determined by the results of the previous outcome, even though each outcome is determined solely by chance (at least in theory).

The question is this: if an event is determined by chance alone, is it still the causal result of an unbroken chain of prior occurrences? Since a chain of prior occurrences must have produced the odds of the observed outcome occurring, they must have determined what further events are possible. Is it enough for determinism that the probability of an outcome occurring is causally determined?

An obvious counterpoint is that chance events do not occur. It is a reasonable objection, but if it is the foundation of determinism, it is a weak one: all it takes is one instance that demonstrates a purely chance outcome to topple determinism, and there is no way to prove that any event was causally determined by a chain of prior occurrences in the first place, without any chance occurrences. Determinism may yet be true, but it would be among the very, very few absolute philosophical propositions that are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R.D.735

An obvious counterpoint is that chance events do not occur. It is a reasonable objection, but if it is the foundation of determinism, it is a weak one: all it takes is one instance that demonstrates a purely chance outcome to topple determinism

---

That does not make the foundation of determinism weak. You are talking about an exception which can never exist.

I really want somebody who disagrees with what I have said so far to explain in logical terms how event A can cause event B at times and event C at other times without anything causing the difference. That is exactly what makes absolutely no sense to me. Why would an exact situation result in B instead of C if nothing causes it to result in B instead of C?

Why doesn't it rain frogs? Why don't fish randomly jump out of the ceiling? Because nothing causes them to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That is exactly what makes absolutely no sense to me. Why would an exact situation result in B instead of C if nothing causes it to result in B instead of C?

---

Be careful. It's impossible to actually test this out in real life, since the situation will always be different - different atoms involved at a different time. Make sure you're clear that this is a hypothetical situation where you simply rewind time and 'do it over again'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Be careful. It's impossible to actually test this out in real life, since the situation will always be different - different atoms involved at a different time. Make sure you're clear that this is a hypothetical situation where you simply rewind time and 'do it over again'.

---

Therein lies the main fault of determinism--it relies upon a simplistic view of causality that doesn't take into account the pervasive flux characteristic of our reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Therein lies the main fault of determinism--it relies upon a simplistic view of causality that doesn't take into account the pervasive flux characteristic of our reality.

---

I think you're misunderstanding determinism a bit.

It's not "this event causes this event, etc. etc." - like that ball falling through the pins example. It's not about 'events', because 'events' don't really objectively exist.

Determinism is about "this worldstate leads to this worldstate, etc. etc.". All of the matter in the universe, and all of the interactions involved, moment to moment, form the links in the chain of 'events'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Be careful. It's impossible to actually test this out in real life, since the situation will always be different - different atoms involved at a different time. Make sure you're clear that this is a hypothetical situation where you simply rewind time and 'do it over again'.

---

That is exactly what I am talking about. It is nothing we could ever be sure we are truly testing in a lab, and that is my criticism of Heisenberg. I am trying to understand the concept of pure randomness logically. I just want somebody to explain how it could possibly make sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thegnome54

It's not "this event causes this event, etc. etc." - like that ball falling through the pins example. It's not about 'events', because 'events' don't really objectively exist.

Determinism is about "this worldstate leads to this worldstate, etc. etc.". All of the matter in the universe, and all of the interactions involved, moment to moment, form the links in the chain of 'events'.

---

What do you mean? Events are real. They are the processes of world state change. They are what cause later events.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Therein lies the main fault of determinism--it relies upon a simplistic view of causality that doesn't take into account the pervasive flux characteristic of our reality.

---

It does take into account the pervasive flux, but it says that the pervasive flux is determined at every step. There are no uncaused events, no matter how complex and changing the state of matter in the universe is.

Did you see what my big question is? Please answer it for me. I want to understand this as well as I can. What I am asking is what nobody has ever even tried to answer for me. Can you?

If backward time travel were possible...

Could casual loops occur?
I go back in time to last with my brand new time machine I just built, and give myself the blueprints for the time machine. Where did the blueprints come from, and what caused them? Nothing.

Could something like this happen? I really don't know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedfishBluefish

If backward time travel were possible...

Could casual loops occur?
I go back in time to last with my brand new time machine I just built, and give myself the blueprints for the time machine. Where did the blueprints come from, and what caused them? Nothing.

Could something like this happen? I really don't know.

---

I think that is the sort of scenario that proves the impossibility of time travel. It seems to me that one of the major rules of reality is that it cannot contradict itself.

Perhaps time is a loop rather than a straight line

With both ends connected

Through thought/mind I am connected to myself at any point in this loop

The thoughts you have work to determine the actions you take

Not only affecting your action at the point you actively are in the moment

But also at every oher point on that loop, or circle


Thus not only did the thoughts I had yesterday bring me to where I am now,

But So are the thoughts I am having tomorrow, determining where I am today

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thegnome54

It's not "this event causes this event, etc. etc." - like that ball falling through the pins example. It's not about 'events', because 'events' don't really objectively exist.

Determinism is about "this worldstate leads to this worldstate, etc. etc.". All of the matter in the universe, and all of the interactions involved, moment to moment, form the links in the chain of 'events'.

---

I think you're wrong there; I think determinism in most people arises precisely from the attempt to preserve the notion that phenomena exist independent of each other and interact in a setting of forces and dimensions--including a "billiard balls" notion of the atomic and subatomic--in the face of mounting evidence that objects, events, forces and dimensions are thoroughly interpenetrating and co-generative.

Framing it in terms of moments or worldstates simply creates a bigger 'event,' equally empty of inherent existence. Where is the worldstate that 'caused' this one? When did this one begin, and when will it give way to its 'effect?'

Quote:

---

It does take into account the pervasive flux, but it says that the pervasive flux is determined at every step. There are no uncaused events, no matter how complex and changing the state of matter in the universe is.

---

The pervasive flux does not allow for steps, just flux (see above).

Quote:

---

Did you see what my big question is? Please answer it for me. I want to understand this as well as I can. What I am asking is what nobody has ever even tried to answer for me. Can you?

---

42.

Well, I took too long, so I'll have to finish this in a new post as opposed to the original. Oh well.



Wave-Particle Duality

The idea that something can exhibit both the properties of waves and the properties of particles was first introduced by Albert Einstein in 1905. Before then, it had been the common belief in the scientific community that light was composed of waves, due to Thomas Young's Double Slit Experiment which showed an interference pattern with light, similar to that which was found with water waves. Albert Einstein disrupted this belief with his interpretation of the photoelectric effect that had been discovered by Heinrich Rudolf Hertz. Basically, a light was shined on a metal plate which caused the plate to develop an electrical charge. The way this was explained was that the light was knocking electrons off of the plate. Unfortunately, only certain wavelengths of light would produce this effect, and other wavelengths would not, no matter what their intensity.

The explanation for this was that light is actually quantized into photons. If the energy of an individual photon (which is determined by its wavelength) was too weak, it would be unable to jostle the electron out of position, and no intensity of light would over come this as the intensity increased the number of photons and not the energy of individual photons.

In 1961, however, it was shown that massive bodies also behave both like waves and particles. Claus Jönsson of the University of Tübingen performed Young's Double slit experiment with electrons and found that they too created an interference pattern that was completely uncharacteristic of a particle. Later, in 1974, researchers at the university of Milan managed to come up with the same results using one electron at a time, proving that the explanation was not as simple as several electrons interfering with each other.

The interesting thing is, if a detector is set up to observe whether the electron goes through one or the other slits, the interference pattern disappears. This is also the same in the case of single photons being used. If the particle is observed, it will from that point on will no longer have the properties of a wave.

In 1974, the first Neutron Interferometer successfully proved that all matter actually exhibits this wave-particle duality. Basically, this is a machine that is capable of refracting neutrons, the particle that makes up most of the mass in an atom. The ability to refract something hinges on it behaving like a wave and so it was shown that even a relatively massive body still has the characteristics of waves.

I'm taking a break, but in my next post I will explain the explanations for these phenomena including Wave Form Collapse and one that has been gaining popularity, Quantum Decoherence. I will also present a basic explanation for Wheeler's delayed Choice experiment which experimentally proves that the collapse of the wave form, or appearance of a collapse can be caused by conscious observation alone and that this phenomenon still holds true even after the event has been said to have taken place. (trippy stuff)

Crucial to the relevance of quantum mechanics is the question I posed earlier and which I don't feel has been answered fully: Is it enough for determinism that the probability of an event is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences, and chance determines the outcome?

If this distinction is not important to the question of determinism, then UM is entirely correct in pointing out that determinism's foundation is not weak. If it is important to the question of determinism, then the validity of quantum mechanics is highly relevant to the debate.

The entire debate, in my opinion, hinges upon this central question. My view is that, if determinism only requires probabilities to be determined, it is hardly determinism at all: one event precedes another, but only causes a further event insofar as the probability of that event is caused. In other words, events are not causally determined, probabilities are. It is indistinguishable from a non-deterministic point of view. I think most deterministic thinkers would rather prefer the 'hard' determinism, which must meet the challenge posed by observations in quantum mechanics in order to remain sound.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I think you're wrong there; I think determinism in most people arises precisely from the attempt to preserve the notion that phenomena exist independent of each other and interact in a setting of forces and dimensions--including a "billiard balls" notion of the atomic and subatomic--in the face of mounting evidence that objects, events, forces and dimensions are thoroughly interpenetrating and co-generative.

---

Then I don't think you understand determinism, like I said. It's not like "The ball moves because I kicked it, and then because it's moving, Mr. Smith puts on his breaks, causing him to lose control of his car and have an accident". It's not even "Electron A hits electron B, causing electron B to change directions". If we are correct in assuming that every piece of matter in existence exerts at least a gravitational force on every other piece, then it's obvious that the entire universe interacts with itself at every point in time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Framing it in terms of moments or worldstates simply creates a bigger 'event,' equally empty of inherent existence. Where is the worldstate that 'caused' this one? When did this one begin, and when will it give way to its 'effect?'

---

A "worldstate" in this case is a 'snapshot'. The position and forces on every bit of matter in existence at any point in time. As soon as any of these change, you have a new worldstate. From this point of view, it seems pretty clear that determinism must be correct, unless true randomness exists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Crucial to the relevance of quantum mechanics is the question I posed earlier and which I don't feel has been answered fully: Is it enough for determinism that the probability of an event is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences, and chance determines the outcome?

---

"Probability" requires multiple possible outcomes, and "chance" requires randomness. Determinism is wholly against the existence of either of these concepts - the basic assumption of determinism is that true randomness does not exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

The pervasive flux does not allow for steps, just flux (see above).

---

When I say "steps", I am still talking about infinite divisibility. A line has an infinite number of points. You might ask where one point ends and another one begins, but that is a moo question because the points are infinitely small. Exact moments are infinitely short, but they still exist, and they are based on each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

42.

---

Oh, come on. Is that really the best you can do? I know it's a hard question to answer, but it gets to the heart of my belief in determinism. Nobody has even tried to answer it yet, and it is exactly what illustrates the reality of determinism. Seriously, what do you have to say about it other than a joke?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

...but that is a moo question ...

---

Did you....did you just make a...'friends' reference?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Nobody has even tried to answer it yet, and it is exactly what illustrates the reality of determinism.

---

I'm getting there. Its on the schedule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Did you....did you just make a...'friends' reference?

---

:lol: It's a Zen reference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I'm getting there. Its on the schedule.

---

That's good news. I have been trying to get people to answer that question since I was 18. It has not happened yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

:lol: It's a Zen reference.

---

There's a Friends episode in which Joey uses the term 'moo point' and when questioned about it he say's, "yeah its like a cow's opinion; it doesn't matter"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That's good news. I have been trying to get people to answer that question since I was 18. It has not happened yet.

---

Just to be sure I know which question you are talking about; "Why would an exact situation result in B instead of C if nothing causes it to result in B instead of C?"

This one?

If so, that is basically the point of this whole thread; to answer that question. I began writing it in response to your request for a logical explanation of true randomness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thegnome54

If we are correct in assuming that every piece of matter in existence exerts at least a gravitational force on every other piece, then it's obvious that the entire universe interacts with itself at every point in time.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thegnome54

A "worldstate" in this case is a 'snapshot'. The position and forces on every bit of matter in existence at any point in time. As soon as any of these change, you have a new worldstate. From this point of view, it seems pretty clear that determinism must be correct, unless true randomness exists.

---

Again, I don't see how it follows that because the universe moves as one, its activity is absolutely determined throughout time. Seen through, this view leads to one of two conclusions:

1. Nothing is happening. Duration is just an incomplete perspective. From a 4+ dimensional perspective, our history is complete: an object, not an activity. If it's true, do we know that the object is a worm, with finite beginning, fixed path, and end? Isn't it equally possible that it's a branching multiverse, a sphere, or a singularity-centered torus, any of which refutes a fixed path from our perspective of duration.

2. First cause, final destination. Duration is undeniably real, but predetermined. Given that our best knowledge suggests our origin in a singularity, everything in our universe has a shared first cause, which itself must be either uncaused, contradicting determinism, or if the fixed pattern unfolds in a closed loop leading from a singularity to an identical singularity, the singularity causes itself, another contradiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Just to be sure I know which question you are talking about; "Why would an exact situation result in B instead of C if nothing causes it to result in B instead of C?"

This one?

If so, that is basically the point of this whole thread; to answer that question. I began writing it in response to your request for a logical explanation of true randomness.

---

Yes, that question. Has it been answered in this thread?

Determinism will never be refuted.

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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".

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?"

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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????????????????????????????????????

Quote:

---

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. :P

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R.D.735

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.

---

Isn't it? Does it not seem more reasonable to say "perhaps there is something we don't understand which is causing this" than it is to say "this just happens differently every time for no reason"? The reasonability of the first seems pretty appealing to me.

Wave-Particle Duality Continued/conclusion

So, in my last big post I described how all matter and energy exhibits both the properties of waves and particles. A man named John Archibald Wheeler came up with a very interesting thought experiment which has since been verified by empirical trials in which the effects of an observer's choice to view the outcome of an experiment has an effect on the output even after the event has occurred. Wheeler reasoned that if a situation could be set up in which one had the option of 'looking' at whether a particle went through one or both slits in a double slit set up after it went through, their decision would still have an effect on what it had done, even though logically the event is already past. Logically, this concept seems absurd, but it made sense based on certain interpretations of these sorts of experiments (namely, the Copenhagen interpretation) and also in the mathematical description of the experiments.

As I said, this experiment has been performed several times and it is now known that this strange phenomenon is in fact a reality. Even if one were to delay the 'choice' over an extremely long time line, the actual outcome is still affected by whether or not the particle is observed, even though what the particle has actually done happened well in the past.

Ok, so what does this all mean? No one knows exactly why everything exhibits these conflicting properties but so far, there are two main interpretations that I will describe extremely briefly, but will provide links if anyone wishes to look in to them further. The first option is that there is a collapse of the wave form into a particle after certain conditions are met. The conditions are either deterministic ones; ones in which a particle or system is required to have certain characteristics by the casual chain of events in which it is involved, and this can be just about anything as described by classical physics, or systems that are in a quantum state are shown to collapse only when an observation of their characteristics is performed.

The other most popular interpretation is known as quantum decoherence. The theory of decoherence basically says that any observation causes the appearance of collapse, but that everything still remains in a quantum superposition wave form state and we are simply unable to make measurements of all of the other possibilities now that they are in the past. This interpretation is very similar to the "many worlds" interpretation and in fact the two do not contradict each other. A very simplistic way of describing this theory is that everything is always in a state of quantum fluctuation, but our view of the world only allows us to look directly 'backwards' through the waves of possibility and not 'forwards' or 'side to side' thus giving the appearance of a linear chain of events. In reality, every moment of the present and future is a sea of infinite possibility and it is only the past that is determined by the observers particular vantage point in that infinite sea.

Wave Function Collapse
Quantum Decoherence

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R.D.735

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?

---

That does not answer my question. It is just another example of, "We don't know what causes it."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by memeticverb

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

---

Pay close attention this time. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT HUMAN UNDERSTANDING, PERCEPTION, OR PREDICTION. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CAUSE AND EFFECT. FUCK HUMANS AS FAR AS THIS DISCUSSION GOES.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That does not answer my question. It is just another example of, "We don't know what causes it."



Pay close attention this time. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT HUMAN UNDERSTANDING, PERCEPTION, OR PREDICTION. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CAUSE AND EFFECT. FUCK HUMANS AS FAR AS THIS DISCUSSION GOES.

---

UM, correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember you arguing that mathematics are universal and all encompassing. If that was in fact you, does this include mathematical systems in which probabilistic functions play an intrinsic role?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

UM, correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember you arguing that mathematics are universal and all encompassing. If that was in fact you, does this include mathematical systems in which probabilistic functions play an intrinsic role?

---

Probability involving percentages less than 100 is all about human understanding. What ends up happening ends up happening, and the only probability that applies beyond our attempts at prediction is 100%. However, that is beside the point. This subtopic goes nowhere near answering why X would cause Y instead of Z. It only addresses human inability to predict with complete accuracy whether Y or Z will happen. I am asking what would make the difference. If you think the answer is "absolutely nothing", then please explain how that is even possible, not just examples of where you think it apparently happens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Probability involving percentages less than 100 is all about human understanding. What ends up happening ends up happening, and the only probability that applies beyond our attempts at prediction is 100%. However, that is beside the point. This subtopic goes nowhere near answering why X would cause Y instead of Z. It only addresses human inability to predict with complete accuracy whether Y or Z will happen. I am asking what would make the difference. If you think the answer is "absolutely nothing", then please explain how that is even possible, not just examples of where you think it apparently happens.

---

I was really hoping you'd follow along the path of reason that I'm laying out for you so that I could set down a conclusion at the end without you saying 'but you didn't answer my question' every step of the way. If you don't see how any of what I've posted applies to answering you, then you'll just have to wait in suspenseful anticipation for me to get around to finishing and tying it all together in one neat little paragraph for you.

If in the end you still want to chalk it all up to 'well there must be a cause even though we have no evidence for it' I'll label you a religious zealot relying on faith just like the many others out there. I for one base my models of reality on the current body of evidence that humans have been able to accumulate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I was really hoping you'd follow along the path of reason that I'm laying out for you so that I could set down a conclusion at the end without you saying 'but you didn't answer my question' every step of the way. If you don't see how any of what I've posted applies to answering you, then you'll just have to wait in suspenseful anticipation for me to get around to finishing and tying it all together in one neat little paragraph for you.

If in the end you still want to chalk it all up to 'well there must be a cause even though we have no evidence for it' I'll label you a religious zealot relying on faith just like the many others out there. I for one base my models of reality on the current body of evidence that humans have been able to accumulate.

---

Seeing is believing, so let's see it. That sounds good. However, I am still going to ask how it is possible. If that never gets answered, I am never going to understand how it is possible. I see no way around the fact that what you are talking about involves uncaused events. If somehow you were to prove that X can cause Y instead of Z for no reason, you would prove the existence of an uncaused event. Right? That is my point, and how such a thing is possible is my question. There is no religious zealotry on my part. It is pure logic.

The observations of quantum mechanics, UM, form a version of a 'proof by contradiction.' If determinism is true, quantum mechanics is false, but quantum mechanics is true (insofar as it has not been contradicted), so determinism must be (or is very likely to be) false. Simply put, the logic is as follows;

(1) P is true
(2) If X is true, P is false.
(3) Since (2) contradicts (1), X must be false

This sort of proof demonstrates that X must be false, not by demonstrating a mechanism that causes it to be true, but by showing that a pre-established fact is contradicted by the assumption that X is true.

Your question, UM, is a demand for a direct proof. Logically speaking, a direct proof is unnecessary if a suitable proof by contradiction already exists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R.D.735

The observations of quantum mechanics, UM, form a version of a 'proof by contradiction.' If determinism is true, quantum mechanics is false, but quantum mechanics is true (insofar as it has not been contradicted), so determinism must be (or is very likely to be) false. Simply put, the logic is as follows;

(1) P is true
(2) If X is true, P is false.
(3) Since (2) contradicts (1), X must be false

This sort of proof demonstrates that X must be false, not by demonstrating a mechanism that causes it to be true, but by showing that a pre-established fact is contradicted by the assumption that X is true.

---

Determinism contradicts only a small part of quantum mechanics. You are talking about a very large discipline of science. Proving one of its tenets false does not prove the whole discipline false. The other side of the coin is that proving parts of quantum mechanics true does not prove the truth of every tenet of the discipline. The Bible involves a lot of true history, but that does not prove that the world is 6,000 years old.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Your question, UM, is a demand for a direct proof. Logically speaking, a direct proof is unnecessary if a suitable proof by contradiction already exists.

---

I just want a direct answer. That is all.

I want to understand how X, and only X, can cause Y but also Z. If there is no answer to the question, then it is possible for something to happen without a cause. Right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I want to understand how X, and only X, can cause Y but also Z. If there is no answer to the question, then it is possible for something to happen without a cause. Right?

---

Please describe a situation in which X and only X is the sole cause of anything. This is a large portion of the meat of what I am getting at. What you call 'X' as if it is a simple event is actually the entire state of the entire universe which may or may not be infinite at any given point. One of the things that I aim to show with this thread is that defining X or any given moment in the history of the entire universe is intrinsically flawed, as according to what we know about the nature of things, it is fundamentally impossible to define a specific moment of causation.

Innit funny how the atheists assert the existence of an unknown force, and the Theist asserts the nonexistence of it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Please describe a situation in which X and only X is the sole cause of anything. This is a large portion of the meat of what I am getting at. What you call 'X' as if it is a simple event is actually the entire state of the entire universe which may or may not be infinite at any given point. One of the things that I aim to show with this thread is that defining X or any given moment in the history of the entire universe is intrinsically flawed, as according to what we know about the nature of things, it is fundamentally impossible to define a specific moment of causation.

---

Shut up, you retarded idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

One of the things that I aim to show with this thread is that defining X or any given moment in the history of the entire universe is intrinsically flawed, as according to what we know about the nature of things, it is fundamentally impossible to define a specific moment of causation.

---

To me, it seems like you're arguing that a human could not feasibly define a specific moment of causation. What we're talking about is whether or not it exists, not whether or not we could define it entirely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

No one knows exactly why everything exhibits these conflicting properties but so far, there are two main interpretations that I will describe extremely briefly, but will provide links if anyone wishes to look in to them further.

---

Does no one suspect that light may be an entirely new phenomenon, which only exhibits wave-like and particle-like qualities under some circumstances?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Please describe a situation in which X and only X is the sole cause of anything. This is a large portion of the meat of what I am getting at. What you call 'X' as if it is a simple event is actually the entire state of the entire universe which may or may not be infinite at any given point. One of the things that I aim to show with this thread is that defining X or any given moment in the history of the entire universe is intrinsically flawed, as according to what we know about the nature of things, it is fundamentally impossible to define a specific moment of causation.

---

We don't have to know all of the details of the situation. Forget us! Once again, this is not about human understanding or prediction. I am talking about cause and effect. Do you believe in it? The universe in state X and then state Z instead of state Y, or Gnome's pool table example.

This is last call, by the way. This thread is a dodgeball game that makes R/S and the 9/11 threads look like A students answering questions on tests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

This is last call, by the way. This thread is a dodgeball game that makes R/S and the 9/11 threads look like A students answering questions on tests.

---

I know, I was hoping somebody would finally settle this, so I would know. :? RD's getting closest, I think, except I don't think it's a philisophical question, but a scientific one. I never thought about the "hard" and "soft" sort of determinism you are describing, soft being based on probabilities (like, the example of radioactive decay; we know the half-life, but can't predict which individual atoms will go at any particular time.)

Isn't it true that there are some processes in quantum mechanics that make as much sense if you look at them going forward in time as backwards, like reverse cause and effect, and time doesn't matter on that scale? I'm not sure what that proves anyway.

Could it be that there is determinism on the macro scale, but not the subatomic? Therefore, the question doesn't really matter; you might as well be deterministic, unless you can find someway of using that random property of subatomic particles. (They have done it with some other paradoxical quantum mechanical properties, such as scanning-tunnelling electron microscopes, so maybe it could be done.) It seems to me that if on our scale of existence things are deterministic, it's only for fun that we investigate whether ultimately in the foaming sea of quantum probabilities things are random.

I guess it is philisophical after all. Anybody ever read the Tao of Physics? I read it a long time ago, you guys are making me want to read it again.

Quote:

---

From UM
Determinism contradicts only a small part of quantum mechanics. You are talking about a very large discipline of science. Proving one of its tenets false does not prove the whole discipline false. The other side of the coin is that proving parts of quantum mechanics true does not prove the truth of every tenet of the discipline. The Bible involves a lot of true history, but that does not prove that the world is 6,000 years old.

---

That's a good counterpoint. If I claimed that the square root of 2 was a rational number, that would only contradict a small part of mathematics, right? Mathematics is far too large a discipline for such a minor thing to matter, or is it not? The key is that mathematics must be self-consistent, as physics must also be. Any contradiction, no matter how small, can indicate that the theory is wrong on a fundamental level, just as Newtonian physics is wrong on a fundamental level.

What criteria do you use to claim contradictions of QM are too minor to matter?

Quote:

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D.735 http://dreamviews.com/community/imag...s/viewpost.gif
Your question, UM, is a demand for a direct proof. Logically speaking, a direct proof is unnecessary if a suitable proof by contradiction already exists.

I just want a direct answer. That is all.

I want to understand how X, and only X, can cause Y but also Z. If there is no answer to the question, then it is possible for something to happen without a cause. Right?

---

This is where the contradictions with QM are most apparent.

Determinism assumes some precondition X exists and has some definite value in any event and in all places, but QM shows that it exists in a different way altogether: as a wavefunction. The wavefunction describes the state X. So far, so good. Determinism is sound.

However, the wavefunction can interfere with itself constructively or destructively (a central tenet of QM). That is, the state called X is a superposition of two or more different states.

X=amplitude(i)*SUM(X(i)+X(2i)+...X(Ni))

Ever so subtly, probability has snuck into the mix, and determinism is in trouble. Determinism requires that X be only one state, not the sum of different states. X can make Y or Z happen, depending on which state is manifested at the moment of causation.

Perhaps one would redefine X as the state of the superposition to get around this, but the problem is the same. The state X is no longer truly uncertain, but now a defined X can cause different events Y or Z to happen. The problem remains the same.

Thus, X can make Y or Z happen.

If one wished, the manifesting of some state at the moment of causation could save determinism here(one state --> one outcome), but it's easy to show that the manifesting of said state is itself an event, with multiple states before and one of many possible states after.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We don't have to know all of the details of the situation. Forget us! Once again, this is not about human understanding or prediction. I am talking about cause and effect. Do you believe in it? The universe in state X and then state Z instead of state Y, or Gnome's pool table example.

This is last call, by the way. This thread is a dodgeball game that makes R/S and the 9/11 threads look like A students answering questions on tests.

---

Feel free to leave and stop arguing it then. I have put down a lot of information and still have a lot left to write out. If I'm not doing it fast enough for you then you need not continue checking back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UM

Originally Posted by Taosaur http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...s/viewpost.gif
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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thegnome54

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.

---

I'm talking about the universe as it actually exists: with humans in it. You're both arguing from the subjective grounds of chains of cause-and-effect, human concepts relevant only to a human (or maybe as broad as higher mammalian) experience of reality. It's a strategy for operating within reality, not a property of the universe. "Objective reality" is just a reality that subjects can agree upon. It only exists in reference to subjects. When talking about the whole enchilada, objectivity does not apply unless one posits an outside observer.

I'm saying that the universe independent of our experience is always in motion--vibrating, if you like--but essentially unchanging. We are part of that vibrating tumult imagining that it is standing still and looking out on as much of the rest as we can see from here. The experience of time, the idea of a past and future, is inherently subjective, or subjective/objective, because the reality we perceive as things interacting over time is a product of subject/object duality.

In any case, determinists are the ones trying to argue antiquated 'common sense' notions of phenomena at odds with the current science, they're the ones arguing for unseen forces and the burden of proof is on them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I'm talking about the universe as it actually exists: with humans in it. You're both arguing from the subjective grounds of chains of cause-and-effect, human concepts relevant only to a human (or maybe as broad as higher mammalian) experience of reality.

---

Let me just make sure we're clear here - when I say "cause and effect", I'm referring to one state of the universe resulting in a future state of the universe, as governed by physical law. Not "Jackson called me a name, so I punched him". I'm just not sure if you're misunderstanding me, or actually questioning the concept of physical laws causing future states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I'm saying that the universe independent of our experience is always in motion--vibrating, if you like--but essentially unchanging. We are part of that vibrating tumult imagining that it is standing still and looking out on as much of the rest as we can see from here. The experience of time, the idea of a past and future, is inherently subjective, or subjective/objective, because the reality we perceive as things interacting over time is a product of subject/object duality.

---

I don't really understand where you're going with this... are you questioning the existence of time, past, and future?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

In any case, determinists are the ones trying to argue antiquated 'common sense' notions of phenomena at odds with the current science, they're the ones arguing for unseen forces and the burden of proof is on them.

---

What? Where do 'unseen forces' come into play?

I apologize if I'm missing the boat here, but it really seems like a lot of you are having way too much trouble grasping the simple concept of determinism. All of Xaq's points so far have been about how humans can't know the current state of the entire universe - this has nothing to do with determinism. Just because I don't know the state of each gate in my computer doesn't mean that the computer is not acting in a predictable, non-random manner. Determinism is simply the logical conclusion if you assume that truly random events do not occur and that all interactions are governed by physical laws. Probability has nothing to do with this, and I really don't think any quantum mechanical theories have much impact, either. Probability, wave-particle duality, and superpositions are all models created by humans in an attempt to predict phenomena. All models are wrong, but some are useful - just because we aren't capable of factoring in every existing variable (aka everything in the universe) and so have to resort to probabilities, does not mean that there are actually multiple possible futures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R.D.735

That's a good counterpoint. If I claimed that the square root of 2 was a rational number, that would only contradict a small part of mathematics, right? Mathematics is far too large a discipline for such a minor thing to matter, or is it not? The key is that mathematics must be self-consistent, as physics must also be. Any contradiction, no matter how small, can indicate that the theory is wrong on a fundamental level, just as Newtonian physics is wrong on a fundamental level.

What criteria do you use to claim contradictions of QM are too minor to matter?

This is where the contradictions with QM are most apparent.

Determinism assumes some precondition X exists and has some definite value in any event and in all places, but QM shows that it exists in a different way altogether: as a wavefunction. The wavefunction describes the state X. So far, so good. Determinism is sound.

However, the wavefunction can interfere with itself constructively or destructively (a central tenet of QM). That is, the state called X is a superposition of two or more different states.

X=amplitude(i)*SUM(X(i)+X(2i)+...X(Ni))

Ever so subtly, probability has snuck into the mix, and determinism is in trouble. Determinism requires that X be only one state, not the sum of different states. X can make Y or Z happen, depending on which state is manifested at the moment of causation.

Perhaps one would redefine X as the state of the superposition to get around this, but the problem is the same. The state X is no longer truly uncertain, but now a defined X can cause different events Y or Z to happen. The problem remains the same.

Thus, X can make Y or Z happen.

If one wished, the manifesting of some state at the moment of causation could save determinism here(one state --> one outcome), but it's easy to show that the manifesting of said state is itself an event, with multiple states before and one of many possible states after.

---

No matter how many states exist at once, the overall state is what it is. Our uncertainty regarding outcomes does not prove that nothing causes one result to happen instead of another. What would cause X to cause Y instead of Z? If the answer is nothing, then the implication is that uncaused events happen.

I don't claim to be a quantum physics expert, but I do see a flaw in that one part of it. I can't name another part of it I disagree with. It looks like there is just a mininterpretation of uncertainty, and I don't know how that mininterpretation affects the rest of the discipline.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

In any case, determinists are the ones trying to argue antiquated 'common sense' notions of phenomena at odds with the current science, they're the ones arguing for unseen forces and the burden of proof is on them.

---

We have given it. If X causes Z instead of Y for no reason, an uncaused event has happened. Uncaused events are impossible. Why does it never rain fish?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Feel free to leave and stop arguing it then. I have put down a lot of information and still have a lot left to write out. If I'm not doing it fast enough for you then you need not continue checking back.

---

I said it was last call, not last look or last post. I will keep looking, but not necessarily expecting your answer.

Quote:

---

From UM
No matter how many states exist at once, the overall state is what it is. Our uncertainty regarding outcomes does not prove that nothing causes one result to happen instead of another. What would cause X to cause Y instead of Z? If the answer is nothing, then the implication is that uncaused events happen.

---

As I mentioned, one could redefine "state," as you seem to have done, so that it encompasses all superpositions of states, but the problem of a probabilistic outcome remains. The overall state is what it is, but the probabilistic outcome implies that this definition of state only obscures what is actually happening: multiple states exist simultaneously.

The second part of your response reveals a difference in interpretations of 'cause.' In this instance, one often views the manifesting of one state in X over other states as an uncaused event. Let's see where that interesting point takes us with a simpler example: a lottery.

Imagine that a lottery is set up that is perfectly random. 10 tickets are sold, distributed perfectly randomly, and one of them is the winning ticket. Since the lottery is perfectly random, can you say what "caused" one person to win while the others didn't?

(A) One could say that the event was uncaused: the existence of random chance means nothing caused it (and that can't logically be true. Therefore, the lottery was fixed in advance and only that person could win, which contradicts the initial assumption of randomness).

(B) Or, one could say that the lottery caused it. Distributing the tickets decided that someone would win (with a 10% chance of it being a certain individual), so holding a lottery must have caused the person to have won the lottery. Not holding a lottery would have resulted in no one winning.

The difference is precisely the question I had mentioned much earlier: Whether, on the one hand, events are directly determined, or on the other hand, their probabilities are determined. Hidden variables meet the needs of the assumption that uncaused events cannot occur only in case (A), where events can only be directly caused, but they are unnecessary in case (B), where events are indirectly caused.

Thus, the implication is that all events can be caused, while retaining probabilistic outcomes. X causes Y or Z when a state-dependent event (also known as a measurement) occurs, and it is this event which, we may say, causes the outcome, whatever it may ultimately be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Imagine that a lottery is set up that is perfectly random.

---

The whole point of determinism relies on assuming that true randomness does not exist. :wtf:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Thus, the implication is that all events can be caused, while retaining probabilistic outcomes. X causes Y or Z when a state-dependent event (also known as a measurement) occurs, and it is this event which, we may say, causes the outcome, whatever it may ultimately be.

---

That makes no sense. Probability is a reflection of human uncertainty. Only one outcome will occur, and it is decided by deterministic, non-random means. Probability sums up the inaccuracy of human models, it is not indicative of randomness or even uncertainty in an objective sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thegnome54

To me, it seems like you're arguing that a human could not feasibly define a specific moment of causation. What we're talking about is whether or not it exists, not whether or not we could define it entirely.

---

Actually, what I am arguing is that a specific moment of causation does not exist. For every instant, there are infinite particles that exist in quantum fluctuation which is an infinite state in and of itself. The idea of freeze framing the infinite universe and labeling it as a specific state is absurd and impossible (based on what we know) under any circumstance from a human perspective or otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Does no one suspect that light may be an entirely new phenomenon, which only exhibits wave-like and particle-like qualities under some circumstances?

---

No, since light is completely unremarkable in this sense, since all matter and energy exhibits wave-like and particle like qualities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thegnome54

The whole point of determinism relies on assuming that true randomness does not exist. :wtf:

That makes no sense. Probability is a reflection of human uncertainty. Only one outcome will occur, and it is decided by deterministic, non-random means. Probability sums up the inaccuracy of human models, it is not indicative of randomness or even uncertainty in an objective sense.

---

Stating these assumptions over and over again does not make them more true. When it comes down to it, you really can't prove any of them. You said yourself; it is impossible to test these things, as it is impossible to exactly recreate the conditions of an event to find out if it will always have the same effect. Any recreation you might attempt is in reality a seperate event with different conditions, and so determinism will always be faith and speculation.

Quote:

---

from thegnome54
That makes no sense. Probability is a reflection of human uncertainty. Only one outcome will occur, and it is decided by deterministic, non-random means. Probability sums up the inaccuracy of human models, it is not indicative of randomness or even uncertainty in an objective sense.

---

I don't need to repeat Taosaur's counterpoint, but I will point out that the lottery analogy was not a demonstration of how a probabilistic event could happen, but a demonstration of two different possible views of causation in the event of an apparently random outcome. One assumes exactly what you've said (the randomness is an illusion), the other does not. It only shows that causality need not be sacrificed in a probabilistic perspective.

I described the mechanism of a probabilistic event in an earlier post. Even if it is not ultimately true, it at least shows that a mechanism can exist which allows for probabilistic outcomes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Actually, what I am arguing is that a specific moment of causation does not exist. For every instant, there are infinite particles that exist in quantum fluctuation which is an infinite state in and of itself.

---

I never said that the specific moment of causation would be finite. I really don't see your argument here. Aren't you again appealing to the impossibility of a human defining something infinitely complex?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

No, since light is completely unremarkable in this sense, since all matter and energy exhibits wave-like and particle like qualities.

---

I think you missed the point. Then all matter and energy should represent a phenomenon which is neither particle nor wave - both of these concepts are clearly flawed models which only partially describe their behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Stating these assumptions over and over again does not make them more true. When it comes down to it, you really can't prove any of them.

---

Obviously. I've said this myself; I'm not saying causal determinism is true. I'm saying that if we decide that there is no such thing as true randomness, then it's the logical conclusion. The only way to "Logically Refute Determinism" would be to prove the assumption wrong. You haven't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R.D.735

I described the mechanism of a probabilistic event in an earlier post. Even if it is not ultimately true, it at least shows that a mechanism can exist which allows for probabilistic outcomes.

one could say that the lottery caused it. Distributing the tickets decided that someone would win (with a 10% chance of it being a certain individual), so holding a lottery must have caused the person to have won the lottery. Not holding a lottery would have resulted in no one winning.

---

I'm really not following your reasoning here. Saying "the lottery caused it" is a transparently human way of using cause and effect. We're talking physical interactions on a tiny scale, not large-scale events 'causing' others.

And if I remember correctly, your mechanism for a probabilistic event involved some event collapsing a superposition, resulting in one of several outcomes. However, this event which collapses the superposition would also be deterministic, would it not?

Quantime Machanics is the study of the subatomic, and how it behaves. The uncertainty principle is a theory. Thoeries can (and often do) displace each other. The U.P. replaced a theory (The one about how objects "jump" from one level to the other, if I recall correctly.)
It may well be replaced by another.

The theorim states that we can only ever know one thing about an electron (or some other object). If we know its size, we cannot know its location. If we know its location, we cannot admit to any knowledge of its size. The very act of observing the object causes it to change state, due to it being "bumped" by the photon.

Unless I am missing something (and I admit I havn't read through this whole thread), the U.P. is not ironclad. If it isn't foolproof, then it will eventually be replaced, and Determinism will be validated.

Sorry if I havn't expressed myself very well, but I'm a bit tirred ...

Quote:

---

from thegnome54
I'm really not following your reasoning here. Saying "the lottery caused it" is a transparently human way of using cause and effect. We're talking physical interactions on a tiny scale, not large-scale events 'causing' others.

---

Saying the lottery caused it is a way to preserve causality in an apparently random event. The reasoning behind (B) is that, since the lottery is a necessary event, and no other events occur between it and the winning of said lottery, it must be the cause. It's a human way of defining cause and effect, to be sure, but all definitions are human ones. They can be altered if their meaning is too broad or limited.

If scale is the objection, one can merely change the situation to a measurement of an atom that results in one of ten equally possible outcomes, which is relevant in the next part of your response.

Quote:

---

from thegnome54
And if I remember correctly, your mechanism for a probabilistic event involved some event collapsing a superposition, resulting in one of several outcomes. However, this event which collapses the superposition would also be deterministic, would it not?

---

I presume you are saying that state-dependent event B chooses a state from the superposition to be manifested deterministically. This is the lottery example in miniature (with an important difference), and the proposition is case (A), where the lottery must be fixed in advance, and chance outcomes are an illusion.

In the macro-scale lottery, distributing tickets to 10 people and fixing the outcome is easy. If each person has a name, you just ask each person their name and give the winning ticket to the right person. A QM event, however, is blind. The ticket counter can't distinguish between the states, because they exist equally and have the same name, X. Describe how the quantum lottery can be fixed so that the same state would win each time it takes place.

To make the task more difficult, the decision of which state wins must be made only after the tickets are sold (to conform to what is observed in experiments).

In this discussion, "probabilistic outcome" does not refer to human knowledge, but to the likelihood, supported by mathematics and physical evidence, that events at a fundamental level are unfixed, yielding an "exact state" only under observation. It's not that we don't know the value; the event/object in question exists in all states and has no value until we draw it into our causal net via observation.

Our experience of physical objects interacting causally in time can be seen as the continuous selection of a set of contiguous variables from an infinite field. The unselected variables don't cease to exist; we're just not looking at them--they're not part of the view from here. Physicality, causality and duration are foundations of our experience of reality, but not of existence itself. They manifest only where observers like us are present, and reflect the nature of such observers in relation to the whole, not fixed properties of the universe. What we take for a fixed reality is in fact highly provisional and entirely contingent upon the mind.

The universe is not changing states in a causal chain. All moments are manifest. Everything is happening at once, all of the time. Within the eternal now, we view a narrow, shifting cross-section.

This is why I say determinism mistakes the nature of duration and causality. There is a sense in which everything is accomplished, but it is the ground against which our experience unfolds. Nothing fixed is 'happening,' and nothing will happen 'next.' We're just here, now.

The lottery seems random to us because we cannot predict the outcome. All we have to go on are probabilities. However, there is going to be a very specific person who wins it. By the laws of physics, the event of that particular person winning is already set in motion and bound to happen. There is a 100% chance that that person is going to win the lottery. However, we don't have all of the information that the universe contains, so the best percentage we can give that particular person's chances is like .0000001%. That is just a figure denoting our perspective. That is all it represents. It does not take away from the fact that the person who is going to win it is going to win it. He/she in fact will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R.D.735

In the macro-scale lottery, distributing tickets to 10 people and fixing the outcome is easy. If each person has a name, you just ask each person their name and give the winning ticket to the right person. A QM event, however, is blind. The ticket counter can't distinguish between the states, because they exist equally and have the same name, X. Describe how the quantum lottery can be fixed so that the same state would win each time it takes place.

To make the task more difficult, the decision of which state wins must be made only after the tickets are sold (to conform to what is observed in experiments).

---

All you would have to do in that hypothetical situation would be set up the lottery process exactly the same way in every single detail. Use the machine that makes the decision in exactly the same way, with every particle doing the same thing. No changes in any of the variables involved on any level no matter how micro. Then you would get the same result every time.

Quote:

---

From UM
All you would have to do in that hypothetical situation would be set up the lottery process exactly the same way in every single detail. Use the machine that makes the decision in exactly the same way, with every particle doing the same thing. No changes in any of the variables involved on any level no matter how micro. Then you would get the same result every time.

---

That would do a very good job of consistently making the same decision, but how that decision is made is still a mystery, and whether the outcome will be consistent is another matter altogether (always picking the third state is a consistent decision, but it the outcome would be no less random, since states may buy tickets in a different order, or simultaneously).

I'll propose my own idea: The states must be part of the mechanism itself. That is, each state in the quantum lottery knows which ticket is the winning ticket and can choose to take it, avoid it, or even exchange their ticket for someone else's. The physical analogy is that the states of a quantum system recognize a future event before it occurs, and know the correct outcome.

The weakness of this idea is that we must either accept time travel or risk the model falling apart due to the inability of a simple state to know the outcomes of each of all possible/future events*. In order for a state to manipulate the tickets properly, it must know the winning numbers before they are called.

A more reasonable mechanism would be desirable.

*That just opened up a subtle window into a completely different refutation of determinism that I hadn't thought about before--conflicts with the capacity of a system to hold information. It's a completely different line of argument, and would only interrupt the debate to pursue it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R.D.735

That would do a very good job of consistently making the same decision, but how that decision is made is still a mystery, and whether the outcome will be consistent is another matter altogether (always picking the third state is a consistent decision, but it the outcome would be no less random, since states may buy tickets in a different order, or simultaneously).

---

It is random in terms of unpatterned order, but not random in the sense that there is a gap in the chain of causation. I am not talking about the word "random" with the meaning "lack of pattern". I am talking about effects that come from causes with more than one possible effect and in which there is no reason for one possible effect to happen instead of another one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R.D.735

I'll propose my own idea: The states must be part of the mechanism itself. That is, each state in the quantum lottery knows which ticket is the winning ticket and can choose to take it, avoid it, or even exchange their ticket for someone else's. The physical analogy is that the states of a quantum system recognize a future event before it occurs, and know the correct outcome.

---

You used an analogy, threw knowledge into it, and then talked about knowledge in the real situation as if it was not a metaphor in the impossible hypothetical. My stance on determinism is not about human knowledge of any kind. Forget humans. I am talking about cause and effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R.D.735

The weakness of this idea is that we must either accept time travel or risk the model falling apart due to the inability of a simple state to know the outcomes of each of all possible/future events*. In order for a state to manipulate the tickets properly, it must know the winning numbers before they are called.

*That just opened up a subtle window into a completely different refutation of determinism that I hadn't thought about before--conflicts with the capacity of a system to hold information. It's a completely different line of argument, and would only interrupt the debate to pursue it.

---

All of that assumes that determinism is about the ability to predict. It is not. Determinism is not about the ability to predict. It is about having one possible 100% specific effect from a 100% specific cause.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wendylove

This is wrong in some many levels.

This is useless, chaos theory says that things are really sensitive to initial condition. However, note the word possible. Ofcourse things are possible, however that can't be used against something being only possible.

Clarity please.
First off all what do you mean prove, do you mean mathematically prove. If you mean scientifically, then read Popper. Not being provable does not make something false.

No it hasen't.

No it hasen't. Not being able to measure something on a quantum level does not disprove determinism.

debateable

Actually, no. Determinism does not say it can predict the future, it just say that

---

Thank you, I agree with all of your rebuttals.

Quote:

---

From UM
It is random in terms of unpatterned order, but not random in the sense that there is a gap in the chain of causation. I am not talking about the word "random" with the meaning "lack of pattern". I am talking about effects that come from causes with more than one possible effect and in which there is no reason for one possible effect to happen instead of another one.
...
You used an analogy, threw knowledge into it, and then talked about knowledge in the real situation as if it was not a metaphor in the impossible hypothetical. My stance on determinism is not about human knowledge of any kind. Forget humans. I am talking about cause and effect.
...
All of that assumes that determinism is about the ability to predict. It is not. Determinism is not about the ability to predict. It is about having one possible 100% specific effect from a 100% specific cause.

---

In fact, I made no statement about human knowledge or the ability of humans to predict anything. It was probably a bit misleading when I personified the quantum states, giving them the ability to "know" something. Of course, they would only have to contain the information, not comprehend it, but, as I mentioned, any talk about information is completely tangential to the debate as it has progressed so far. I don't want to talk about it either.

The main point of the post was to clarify the challenge I had made. By proposing a specific mechanism whereby an apparently random quantum lottery could be fixed, I hoped that the main thrust of that challenge would be more easily understood as an appeal to more specific ideas of how determinism would work in practice.

Considering your mechanism for fixing the lottery:

Quote:

---

All you would have to do in that hypothetical situation would be set up the lottery process exactly the same way in every single detail. Use the machine that makes the decision in exactly the same way, with every particle doing the same thing. No changes in any of the variables involved on any level no matter how micro. Then you would get the same result every time.

---

A vague model such as this says more by implication than by explication. I think it would be much improved if it simply said that the event in question can tell the states apart because they differ in respect to hidden variables, and the outcome can thus be fixed (or some variation of this). Then, provided these variables are kept the same, the outcome would never turn out differently in repeated trials.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

What this all means for Laplace is that no being could possibly know every aspect of the movements and the position of all that exists in the universe at any given point in time, and so his interpretation of determinism is false, and at the very least determinism is ill equipped to make accurate predictions about the state of the entirity of any system at any given point in time.

---

No being? Maybe no HUMAN being can presently do so but this in no way excludes a creator-God. You are speaking from human perspective and experimentation which is quite obviously not perfect.