• Lucid Dreaming - Dream Views




    Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
    Results 1 to 25 of 84
    1. #1
      Drivel's Advocate Xaqaria's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2007
      LD Count
      WhoIsJohnGalt?
      Gender
      Location
      Denver, CO Catchphrase: BullCockie!
      Posts
      5,589
      Likes
      930
      DJ Entries
      9

      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
      Last edited by Xaqaria; 03-24-2008 at 11:05 AM.

      The ability to happily respond to any adversity is the divine.
      Art
      Dream Journal Shaman Apprentice Chronicles

    2. #2
      Drivel's Advocate Xaqaria's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2007
      LD Count
      WhoIsJohnGalt?
      Gender
      Location
      Denver, CO Catchphrase: BullCockie!
      Posts
      5,589
      Likes
      930
      DJ Entries
      9
      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.

      The ability to happily respond to any adversity is the divine.
      Art
      Dream Journal Shaman Apprentice Chronicles

    3. #3
      Look away wendylove's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 2007
      Gender
      Location
      Secret forum
      Posts
      1,064
      Likes
      1
      This is wrong in some many levels.
      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.
      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.
      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.
      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.
      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
      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
      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
      Xaqaria
      The planet Earth exhibits all of these properties and therefore can be considered alive and its own single organism by the scientific definition.
      7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms.
      does the planet Earth reproduce, well no unless you count the moon.

    4. #4
      ...but I digress MrBeelzy's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 2007
      Gender
      Location
      'toon town
      Posts
      242
      Likes
      1
      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.

    5. #5
      Consciousness Itself Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      Everywhere
      Posts
      12,871
      Likes
      1046
      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
      How do you know you are not dreaming right now?

    6. #6
      The Wondering Gnome Achievements:
      1 year registered Referrer Silver Veteran First Class 5000 Hall Points
      thegnome54's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2007
      Gender
      Location
      Sector ZZ 9 Plural Z Alpha
      Posts
      1,534
      Likes
      21
      Quote Originally Posted by Xaqaria View Post
      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?

    7. #7
      On the woad to wuin R.D.735's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2005
      Gender
      Location
      Mostly in my right hemisphere
      Posts
      340
      Likes
      0

      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.

    8. #8
      Consciousness Itself Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      Everywhere
      Posts
      12,871
      Likes
      1046
      Quote Originally Posted by R.D.735 View Post
      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.
      How do you know you are not dreaming right now?

    9. #9
      The Wondering Gnome Achievements:
      1 year registered Referrer Silver Veteran First Class 5000 Hall Points
      thegnome54's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2007
      Gender
      Location
      Sector ZZ 9 Plural Z Alpha
      Posts
      1,534
      Likes
      21
      Quote Originally Posted by Universal Mind View Post
      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'.

    10. #10
      widdershins modality Achievements:
      1 year registered Created Dream Journal Made lots of Friends on DV Veteran First Class Tagger First Class Referrer Bronze 10000 Hall Points
      Taosaur's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2004
      Gender
      Location
      Ohiopolis
      Posts
      4,843
      Likes
      1004
      DJ Entries
      19
      Quote Originally Posted by thegnome54 View Post
      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.
      If you have a sense of caring for others, you will manifest a kind of inner strength in spite of your own difficulties and problems. With this strength, your own problems will seem less significant and bothersome to you. By going beyond your own problems and taking care of others, you gain inner strength, self-confidence, courage, and a greater sense of calm.Dalai Lama



    11. #11
      The Wondering Gnome Achievements:
      1 year registered Referrer Silver Veteran First Class 5000 Hall Points
      thegnome54's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2007
      Gender
      Location
      Sector ZZ 9 Plural Z Alpha
      Posts
      1,534
      Likes
      21
      Quote Originally Posted by Taosaur View Post
      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'.

    12. #12
      Consciousness Itself Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      Everywhere
      Posts
      12,871
      Likes
      1046
      Quote Originally Posted by thegnome54 View Post
      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 View Post
      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 View Post
      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?
      Last edited by Universal Mind; 03-25-2008 at 05:41 AM.
      How do you know you are not dreaming right now?

    13. #13
      adversary RedfishBluefish's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2007
      Location
      Now
      Posts
      495
      Likes
      4
      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.

    14. #14
      Consciousness Itself Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      Everywhere
      Posts
      12,871
      Likes
      1046
      Quote Originally Posted by RedfishBluefish View Post
      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.
      How do you know you are not dreaming right now?

    15. #15
      Be NOW Achievements:
      1 year registered Created Dream Journal Veteran First Class 5000 Hall Points
      NonDualistic's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2007
      Gender
      Location
      Quad Cities , Illinois USA
      Posts
      987
      Likes
      82
      DJ Entries
      21
      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

    16. #16
      widdershins modality Achievements:
      1 year registered Created Dream Journal Made lots of Friends on DV Veteran First Class Tagger First Class Referrer Bronze 10000 Hall Points
      Taosaur's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2004
      Gender
      Location
      Ohiopolis
      Posts
      4,843
      Likes
      1004
      DJ Entries
      19
      Quote Originally Posted by thegnome54 View Post
      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?'

      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).

      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.
      If you have a sense of caring for others, you will manifest a kind of inner strength in spite of your own difficulties and problems. With this strength, your own problems will seem less significant and bothersome to you. By going beyond your own problems and taking care of others, you gain inner strength, self-confidence, courage, and a greater sense of calm.Dalai Lama



    17. #17
      Drivel's Advocate Xaqaria's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2007
      LD Count
      WhoIsJohnGalt?
      Gender
      Location
      Denver, CO Catchphrase: BullCockie!
      Posts
      5,589
      Likes
      930
      DJ Entries
      9
      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)

      The ability to happily respond to any adversity is the divine.
      Art
      Dream Journal Shaman Apprentice Chronicles

    18. #18
      On the woad to wuin R.D.735's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2005
      Gender
      Location
      Mostly in my right hemisphere
      Posts
      340
      Likes
      0
      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.

    19. #19
      The Wondering Gnome Achievements:
      1 year registered Referrer Silver Veteran First Class 5000 Hall Points
      thegnome54's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2007
      Gender
      Location
      Sector ZZ 9 Plural Z Alpha
      Posts
      1,534
      Likes
      21
      Quote Originally Posted by Taosaur View Post
      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 View Post
      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 View Post
      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.

    20. #20
      Consciousness Itself Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      Everywhere
      Posts
      12,871
      Likes
      1046
      Quote Originally Posted by Taosaur View Post
      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 View Post
      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?
      How do you know you are not dreaming right now?

    21. #21
      Drivel's Advocate Xaqaria's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2007
      LD Count
      WhoIsJohnGalt?
      Gender
      Location
      Denver, CO Catchphrase: BullCockie!
      Posts
      5,589
      Likes
      930
      DJ Entries
      9
      Quote Originally Posted by Universal Mind View Post
      ...but that is a moo question ...
      Did you....did you just make a...'friends' reference?

      Quote Originally Posted by Universal Mind View Post
      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.

      The ability to happily respond to any adversity is the divine.
      Art
      Dream Journal Shaman Apprentice Chronicles

    22. #22
      Consciousness Itself Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      Everywhere
      Posts
      12,871
      Likes
      1046
      Quote Originally Posted by Xaqaria View Post
      Did you....did you just make a...'friends' reference?
      It's a Zen reference.

      Quote Originally Posted by Xaqaria View Post
      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.
      How do you know you are not dreaming right now?

    23. #23
      Drivel's Advocate Xaqaria's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2007
      LD Count
      WhoIsJohnGalt?
      Gender
      Location
      Denver, CO Catchphrase: BullCockie!
      Posts
      5,589
      Likes
      930
      DJ Entries
      9
      Quote Originally Posted by Universal Mind View Post
      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 View Post
      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.

      The ability to happily respond to any adversity is the divine.
      Art
      Dream Journal Shaman Apprentice Chronicles

    24. #24
      widdershins modality Achievements:
      1 year registered Created Dream Journal Made lots of Friends on DV Veteran First Class Tagger First Class Referrer Bronze 10000 Hall Points
      Taosaur's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2004
      Gender
      Location
      Ohiopolis
      Posts
      4,843
      Likes
      1004
      DJ Entries
      19
      Quote Originally Posted by thegnome54 View Post
      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 View Post
      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.
      If you have a sense of caring for others, you will manifest a kind of inner strength in spite of your own difficulties and problems. With this strength, your own problems will seem less significant and bothersome to you. By going beyond your own problems and taking care of others, you gain inner strength, self-confidence, courage, and a greater sense of calm.Dalai Lama



    25. #25
      Consciousness Itself Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      Everywhere
      Posts
      12,871
      Likes
      1046
      Quote Originally Posted by Xaqaria View Post
      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?
      Last edited by Universal Mind; 03-26-2008 at 02:12 AM.
      How do you know you are not dreaming right now?

    Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •