Thread: Model Of Determinism.

They say, if you stop the waffery of a butterfly then the whole world has changed because there was no waft on a certain day. It's a model for determinism. It shows that everything is appart of a cause of something. Perhaps, that butterfly could of gone into someones car, and frightened them and they had a car crash. Not preferably a butterfly, but you get the point.

Thought's ?

You're talking about two pretty different things. The butterfly thing is about chaos and how complex systems are extremely sensetive to small changes. Determinism is just the idea that a system can only follow one course through time.

Originally Posted by Xei

You're talking about two pretty different things. The butterfly thing is about chaos and how complex systems are extremely sensetive to small changes. Determinism is just the idea that a system can only follow one course through time.

Chaos theory is an extent of determinism. The thing about "stopping a butterfly" is just a model to help human minds comprehend the phenomenon. You can't really "stop the butterfly", because you're part of the system yourself. If you stopped the butterfly, it'd be because all the things previous to that action ended up making you do it -- aka determinism

Determinism, chaos theory, catastrophe theory, complexity theory, entropy and energy, natural selection, and even sociology are all part of the same subject -- Systems Theory -- or more specifically, systemics. It is used to study and understand, well, systems in general. I use it a lot in biology classes at med school.

Chaos theory is an extent of determinism.

Not really.

You can have probabilistic chaotic systems as well as deterministic ones.

Originally Posted by Lucidness

They say, if you stop the waffery of a butterfly then the whole world has changed because there was no waft on a certain day. It's a model for determinism. It shows that everything is appart of a cause of something. Perhaps, that butterfly could of gone into someones car, and frightened them and they had a car crash. Not preferably a butterfly, but you get the point.

Thought's ?

I am a big believer in determinism, and I agree with the point of the scenario. Altering the course of the butterfly might not create a difference that is very noticeable to humans for a while, but it would definitely change the course of time permanently. I think that eventually the difference would lead to something so off the other course that we could see a huge difference if we could compare the two conceptual paths. Eventually, perhaps a butterfly offspring that would have otherwise been doesn't land on a window while a couple is talking, making it where their conversation doesn't go in the direction of insects, making it where the guy instead mentions somebody they didn't realize they both know, leading to calling that person to hang out with them that weekend, leading to that person meeting a friend of theirs and later marrying her. That perhaps affects the couple's blood line, and their great great great grandson might be an important politician who greatly changes national politics. There are all kinds of possibilities. What I am certain of is that the change would be permanent.

I'm not a believer of determinism anymore. Ever since I found out that in quantum mechanics, when a quantum particle is in superposition it sort-of randomly chooses its actual position whenever a so-called "wave collapse" occurs. And random really means random here. This has some influence on the world. And since there's random influence on the world, it means that the world can't be deterministic.

Originally Posted by Koalaman

I'm not a believer of determinism anymore. Ever since I found out that in quantum mechanics, when a quantum particle is in superposition it sort-of randomly chooses its actual position whenever a so-called "wave collapse" occurs. And random really means random here. This has some influence on the world. And since there's random influence on the world, it means that the world can't be deterministic.

I am 100% positive that the theory will eventually be shot down. I think quantum physicists have come to a point where they can't identify causes so they cop out and go, "Uh, it's random. We can't find the cause, so we theorize that there is not one." They are talking magic, like rabbits suddenly appearing out of hats and the Statue of Liberty suddenly disappearing. The requirement of cause is necessary for order. Without it, a hippo could crawl out of your sink and start humping Big Bird's leg. We would have an absurd universe. There would be so much stuff like that that our bodies would fall apart with Earth and everything else. The idea that anything could ever be uncaused is complete nonsense. Uncaused events are impossible. You can bet the farm on that. With a little more research, physicists are going to realize that they were talking out of their asses. Stay tuned.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I am 100% positive that the theory will eventually be shot down. I think quantum physicists have come to a point where they can't identify causes so they cop out and go, "Uh, it's random. We can't find the cause, so we theorize that there is not one." They are talking magic, like rabbits suddenly appearing out of hats and the Statue of Liberty suddenly disappearing. The requirement of cause is necessary for order. Without it, a hippo could crawl out of your sink and start humping Big Bird's leg. We would have an absurd universe. There would be so much stuff like that that our bodies would fall apart with Earth and everything else. The idea that anything could ever be uncaused is complete nonsense. Uncaused events are impossible. You can bet the farm on that. With a little more research, physicists are going to realize that they were talking out of their asses. Stay tuned.

I'm really curious, but scared too. I was scared when I thought that the world was deterministic. It didn't seem like I had any sort of control. Whatever I did, it was meant to be. I could be lying in my bed all day all my life and it would simply be the only way things could possibly go.

Anyway, the situation you're describing shouldn't necessary be the case. Probably only a really small part of all the matter is acting out on random, because the gravity limits the possible superpositions of quantum particles too much, which makes that there's only one possible position to go to for those quantum particles. So I don't think a hippo could be crawling out of my sink and humping Big Bird's leg. Or at least, it seems highly unlikely. I'd say randomness appears only at a much lower level. Like slight mutations in DNA.

Quantum physics doesn't suggest that things have no causes. In fact it describes an object known as a 'wavefunction' which describes possible events, which is exact and evolves in a deterministic manner, until it is observed. Probability does not infer chaos either. There are many real world or hypothetical examples you can easily come up with to show this. Nowhere does quantum physics predict macroscopic chaos like objects disappearing or our bodies randomly falling apart; quantum physics is consistent with the orderly universe we see. It does however predict microscopic chaos and if you do experiments on the microscopic world you find that is the case.

I know quantum physics doesn't predict the crazy events I talked about it. I was just taking its reasoning to the nth degree. If particles just act randomly without reason in any case at all, it is just as absurd as a hippo coming out of the sink and humping Big Bird's leg. It doesn't make sense.

How is randomness real on a microscopic level? Let's say a given particle can do either A or B. There is a reason it does A if it does A and a reason it does B if it does B. How could it possibly just happen to do A instead of B for no reason? That is not deterministic. It is hocus pocus.

"God does not play dice." - Albert Einstein

"God does play dice." - Stephen Hawking

Hawking's double metaphor is wrong.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It doesn't make sense.

To you.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

With a little more research, physicists are going to realize that they were talking out of their asses.

Just a liiittle more research and they'll realize they've had it all wrong for the last 100 years. I'm sure they'll realize that DNA isn't real, and the speed of light isn't a constant as well.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I am 100% positive that the theory will eventually be shot down.

This is the reason why your opinion doesn't mean very much. How can you honestly be 100% positive about something that you obviously don't know that much about? Its this sort of mentality that really calls all of your opinions into question, and not just this one.

Lol. Consciousness is not a physical force or inherent property of the universe as some people here put it. It's a frigging cognitive function of the brain, on a MUCH, MUCH more macroscopic level. Robots can theoretically be programmed to have consciousness - it just takes some heavy work.

Why must human beings be so special? We're just part of the fugging matter that exists on the universe. If we're discussing this, we're doing it because of causality.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Lol. Consciousness is not a physical force or inherent property of the universe as some people here put it. It's a frigging cognitive function of the brain, on a MUCH, MUCH more macroscopic level. Robots can theoretically be programmed to have consciousness - it just takes some heavy work.

Why must human beings be so special? We're just part of the fugging matter that exists on the universe. If we're discussing this, we're doing it because of causality.

You are the one equating humans and consciousness, not me. I don't know if really is or not, but I doubt it. If it is so funny that people are saying this, then you can probably back yourself up with some scientific or philosophical arguments about the nature of consciousness, can't you? I know I already posted one that explained it in the way that I am describing it; did you read it?

Just in case you missed it, here it is again;

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

My personal views on this subject are very much in line with the one explained in this paper, which labels consciousness as part of the universal substrate, or fabric of existence. In this sense, asking if something existed before consciousness is akin to asking if something objectively existed with form before gravity or electromagnetic forces, or space, or time.

I also backed it up with a fairly in-depth explanation of some of the implications of quantum theory. Can you point out anywhere that I was wrong? Instead of just coming in and attempting to 'laugh off' people you don't agree with and make baseless assertions, how about you actually participate in the discussion?

LMAO.
Get serious Xaqaria. Come on. Try backing your arguments with facts. Call me when you're done, if that day ever comes.

You don't even know basic biochemistry and physiology to know how a brain works. Don't try to use quantum physics to explain consciousness -- it's like trying to use culinary to explain WW2.

I will detail my response when I have more time. But as for now, Kromoh, perhaps you should actually back up your claims yourself. So far you just seem to be carrying on and laughing at others. Give us a break and at least elaborate.

Originally Posted by really

I will detail my response when I have more time. But as for now, Kromoh, perhaps you should actually back up your claims yourself. So far you just seem to be carrying on and laughing at others. Give us a break and at least elaborate.

The onus of proof is up to you. Your argument is a joke. Thus, I will not waste my time disproving something I don't really need to. You don't even know what consciousness is.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

LMAO.
Get serious Xaqaria. Come on. Try backing your arguments with facts. Call me when you're done, if that day ever comes.

You don't even know basic biochemistry and physiology to know how a brain works. Don't try to use quantum physics to explain consciousness -- it's like trying to use culinary to explain WW2.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

LMAO.
Get serious Xaqaria. Come on. Try backing your arguments with facts. Call me when you're done, if that day ever comes.

You don't even know basic biochemistry and physiology to know how a brain works. Don't try to use quantum physics to explain consciousness -- it's like trying to use culinary to explain WW2.

So why don't you enlighten us proles with your in-depth knowledge of the source of consciousness? While you're at it, you should point us in the direction of your Nobel winning dissertation on the subject, as since no one else on the planet has been able to explain the the reason for the existence of the phenomenon, you must have managed to publish your amazing insights. Come on Genius, show us what you've got.

It's a mystery in the sense that nobody is able to explain why it exists. It is easy to conceive of a being capable of acting intelligently which doesn't have conciousness (a philosophical zombie). Therefore an explanation is needed. The holism of the phenomenon is for all intents and purposes paradoxical due to the Ship of Theseus arguments you can apply.

Nobody knows how to make a robot (computer would be a better word, or any kind of object capable of enacting algorithms) conscious because nobody knows the neural and hence algorithmic correlates of consciousness (unless I suppose we take the brute force method of emulating an entire brain).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscio...fic_approaches
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention

When you're done reading that, I'll direct you to neuroscience books.

Oh, Kromoh. I'm disappointed in you. Wikipedia is hardly a groundbreaking thesis. Is that the best effort you can muster?

The basic question which needs to be answered is this: why are we not philosophical zombies?

You won't find it on Wikipedia.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Oh, Kromoh. I'm disappointed in you. Wikipedia is hardly a groundbreaking thesis. Is that the best effort you can muster?

It's as much as I need to enlighten you. I thought you'd understand that, if you bring concepts too complex to a person, they won't understand it.

Yo didn't even read Wikipedia. Shame on you. You won't get too far without a basis, you know.

Here go some book recommendations to get you going into neurosciences (while you're at it, note how no author ever mentions quantum physics):

Atlas of Neuroscience - Netter
Basic Neuroscience - Guyton
The Cognitive Neurosciences - Gazzaniga

Please stop dismissing my question.

Originally Posted by Xei

Please stop dismissing my question.

Please stop dismissing things I tell you to read.

Also, please stop bickering over stupidities. Here I was thinking this was a mature argument. For a moment I forgot the fact that people who misinterpret quantum physics are never mature.