Thread: Model Of Determinism.

Originally Posted by Xei

omg funny picture lol

You're actually capable of laughter?

Originally Posted by Xei

So there's an infinite chain of reasons?

Probably. I think nonexistence might work as a cause, and a lot of paradoxical shit gets involved with the principle of nonexistence. It may work as a cause yet not require a cause since it is an absence of existence. Between it and any of its effects may be an infinite number of cause and effect relationships in a chain, like how an infinite number of points exists between any two points. I am not sure. What I am convinced of is that no form of existence is a first cause, except possibly the principle of existence itself. Since cause is a form of existence, it could not be that existence itself has a cause other than possibly nonexistence.

Ignoring for now the infinite regression of causes in a deterministic universe, how was a universe of divergent forms "programmed into" a uniform singularity, which remained for all intents and purposes uniform through the first several stages of expansion? If this is not an accurate characterization of the pre-BB singularity, by all means educate me, but if all the pre-material whatnot that would be our universe once occupied a single point, it was by definition uniform, was it not?

Now, quantum "randomness" provides a mechanism of differentiation: a powerful mechanism on the scale to which the early universe was compacted. Not only does determinism demand a nonsensical "First Cause," but it fails to account for the transition from a uniform to a differentiated system once our universe did exist.

As I explained, first cause is not nonsensical. Whether the big bang came from a singularity or a fininite object, mathematical laws and no telling what other principles were behind the course of events involved in the big bang. Mathematical laws are not uniform. Neither are dimensions.

Tell me how specific nature of event (something) from nothing makes sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomn...sical_sciences
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

Originally Posted by Mr Wikipedia

"The time evolution of wave functions is deterministic in the sense that, given a wavefunction at an initial time, it makes a definite prediction of what the wavefunction will be at any later time.[29] During a measurement, the change of the wavefunction into another one is not deterministic, but rather unpredictable, i.e., random."

Aka it is deterministic in the point of every effect having a defining causality, but you can't observe it physically. Aka there is no randomness in physical laws. Aka perceived randomness is failure to understand the underlying variables.

Determinism is not about humans determining things, but about natural laws determining physical systems -- aka causality.

That's not what it says at all. :l

The wave function is an object which defines the probabilities of any event. This evolves in an exact manner until one makes an observation to determine which event has occured, at which point the wavefunction somehow (this 'somehow' is the contentious point about QM) turns into a specific event, with a probability determined by the wavefunction: wavefunction collapse is totally at odds with determinism.

Experiments testing Bell's inequality have indicated there are no local 'hidden variables' that we are ignorant of.

You're actually capable of laughter?

I'm autistic, jerk.

j/k

As I explained, first cause is not nonsensical. Whether the big bang came from a singularity or a fininite object, mathematical laws and no telling what other principles were behind the course of events involved in the big bang. Mathematical laws are not uniform. Neither are dimensions.

Tell me how specific nature of event (something) from nothing makes sense.

I think we need to make the distinction between 'reasons' and 'causality', the latter specifically being a 'linear temporal reason', the former being a more general concept.

If you look at the reason for the Big Bang as you say, you may end up with some 'mathematical reason' or something similar, but again that mathematical reason (mathematics being deductive) will boil down to some other fundamental truth with no reason for it. I'm not sure how you qualify the difference between this fundamental reason with the hypothetical fundamental reasons of quantum mechanics.

Also, what do you mean by the uniformity of mathematics and dimensions?

Originally Posted by Xei

I think we need to make the distinction between 'reasons' and 'causality', the latter specifically being a 'linear temporal reason', the former being a more general concept.

? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cause

Originally Posted by Xei

If you look at the reason for the Big Bang as you say, you may end up with some 'mathematical reason' or something similar, but again that mathematical reason (mathematics being deductive) will boil down to some other fundamental truth with no reason for it. I'm not sure how you qualify the difference between this fundamental reason with the hypothetical fundamental reasons of quantum mechanics.

The principles of quantum mechanics are individual forms of existence. They are not existence itself. Existence itself is the stage on which all of the other things we are talking about have their states of being and do their things. It is a rule of existence that reasons/causes are necessary, but not necessarily a rule for existence itself. Reasons are forms of existence, so they do not precede existence. The particular rules of quantum physics do not precede existence, so they have to have reasons.

Originally Posted by Xei

Also, what do you mean by the uniformity of mathematics and dimensions?

I was saying that mathematics and dimensions are not uniform. I made that point in response to Taosaur's point about the uniformity of the singularity.

? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cause

? I said 'causality', not 'cause'.

You can have reasons which aren't causes in the sense of causality... like, the reason 6 isn't a prime number is that 2 and 3 divide it; but this truth has nothing to do with time.

I was just making that distinction because causes in this sense and reasons can often be conflated in these discussions about prime movers, etc.

The principles of quantum mechanics are individual forms of existence. They are not existence itself. Existence itself is the stage on which all of the other things we are talking about have their states of being and do their things. It is a rule of existence that reasons/causes are necessary, but not necessarily a rule for existence itself. Reasons are forms of existence, so they do not precede existence. The particular rules of quantum physics do not precede existence, so they have to have reasons.

I'm not sure I really agree with your argument, but what I'd say to this is that I disagree that quantum effects lack reason or causality. The waveform itself which dictates what may occur evolves in a deterministic manner with clear causality.

I was saying that mathematics and dimensions are not uniform. I made that point in response to Taosaur's point about the uniformity of the singularity.

Yes I know that's what you said, but I don't understand how mathematics or dimensions can be said to be 'same all the way through' as such.

I'm sure you know what you're talking about but I'm just asking for something more explicit.

I understand what Taosaur means by the uniformity of singularities because 'a singularity is a singularity' as it were. A point is a point; it must be the same at every point because there's only one point anyway.

Originally Posted by Xei

You can have reasons which aren't causes in the sense of causality... like, the reason 6 isn't a prime number is that 2 and 3 divide it; but this truth has nothing to do with time.

I was just making that distinction because causes in this sense and reasons can often be conflated in these discussions about prime movers, etc.

I agree with the conceptual distinction. It was just the labels I was questioning. I make the distinction a lot when I argue about intelligent design.

Originally Posted by Xei

?Yes I know that's what you said, but I don't understand how mathematics or dimensions can be said to be 'same all the way through' as such.

I said they are not uniform.

I know you did, I don't understand conceptually what the statement is meant to mean; I'm not worrying yet if it's true or not.

Originally Posted by Xei

I know you did, I don't understand conceptually what the statement is meant to mean; I'm not worrying yet if it's true or not.

Different numbers and different dimensions are different. They are not all the same. The laws behind the big bang are not uniform. That is why the big bang could happen with a singularity and produce a universe that is not uniform.

The laws behind the Big Bang being quantum physics, yes.

If the Big Bang happened according to classical laws which are symmetrical (the more technical word for what I think you mean by uniform) then the universe would indeed be uniform. The centre of gravity of the universe would stay at the point of the singularity and every particle would radiate out in a straight line from this point whilst deccelerating (possibly leading to a Big Crunch back at the same point of origin).

Originally Posted by Xei

The laws behind the Big Bang being quantum physics, yes.

If the Big Bang happened according to classical laws which are symmetrical (the more technical word for what I think you mean by uniform) then the universe would indeed be uniform. The centre of gravity of the universe would stay at the point of the singularity and every particle would radiate out in a straight line from this point whilst deccelerating (possibly leading to a Big Crunch back at the same point of origin).

Agreed.

The only reason I talked about uniformity in regard to the laws that were behind the big bang is that Taosaur brought up the uniformity of the singularity. You seem to be saying that the idea of mathematical uniformity is so absurd that it makes no sense to even talk about it, but I think it makes sense to talk about it in order to negate the idea of its existence.

Hmm I don't think mathematical or dimensional uniformity is well defined, but you can talk about uniformity of specific mathematical models like the one above, which was something like dr/dt = -kr/|r|^3 .

What do you make of Taosaur's point, then?

Originally Posted by Xei

Hmm I don't think mathematical or dimensional uniformity is well defined, but you can talk about uniformity of specific mathematical models like the one above, which was something like dr/dt = -kr/|r|^3 .

That's uniformity? It seems like the use of different variables is enough to show lack of uniformity.

Originally Posted by Xei

What do you make of Taosaur's point, then?

This...

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Whether the big bang came from a singularity or a fininite object, mathematical laws and no telling what other principles were behind the course of events involved in the big bang. Mathematical laws are not uniform. Neither are dimensions.

(except with "finite" spelled correctly)

That's uniformity? It seems like the use of different variables is enough to show lack of uniformity.

Howso?

This...

But in light of what I said above, the classical model (of which I gave a kind of bastardised version above) is indeed symmetrical (/uniform), which is at odds with observation, patently.

Originally Posted by Xei

Howso?

It involves differentiation.

Originally Posted by Xei

But in light of what I said above, the classical model (of which I gave a kind of bastardised version above) is indeed symmetrical (/uniform), which is at odds with observation, patently.

Are you saying that the laws behind the big bang were uniform? Did numbers and the rules concerning them not exist?

It involves differentiation.

...thus?

What substitution are you talking about..?

[That should be d2r/dt2 btw]

Are you saying that the laws behind the big bang were uniform? Did numbers and the rules concerning them not exist?

The fact that numbers exist (disputable but let's not go there) and the fact that numbers are different does not somehow mean that the Big Bang would be non uniform, unless I've misunderstood your meaning.

If the laws behind the universe were classical (Newton's or Einstein's) then the universe would be symmetrical because every 'particle' would follow a radial path.

It's only due to quantum randomness that the universe isn't uniform.

Originally Posted by Xei

...thus?

What substitution are you talking about..?

[That should be d2r/dt2 btw]

Ha ha, I didn't mean it in the formal sense. I probably should have used a different word for that reason. The ratio involves different variables. The principle involves other principles, and those principles are different from each other.

Originally Posted by Xei

The fact that numbers exist (disputable but let's not go there) and the fact that numbers are different does not somehow mean that the Big Bang would be non uniform, unless I've misunderstood your meaning.

If the laws behind the universe were classical (Newton's or Einstein's) then the universe would be symmetrical because every 'particle' would follow a radial path.

It's only due to quantum randomness that the universe isn't uniform.

Why would they follow a radial path? If they started out in radial paths, they would continue, but the non-uniform nature of the laws of the universe alone were enough to make the big bang itself non-uniform. The mere fact that the particles moved in different directions and that different directions even existed shows non-uniformity in the nature of the universe. Also, whether the big bang came from a singularity is still being debated.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Why would they follow a radial path? If they started out in radial paths, they would continue, but the non-uniform nature of the laws of the universe alone were enough to make the big bang itself non-uniform. The mere fact that the particles moved in different directions and that different directions even existed shows non-uniformity in the nature of the universe. Also, whether the big bang came from a singularity is still being debated.

What sort of big bang would be preceded by something other than a singularity? The very concept of a big bang is that everything that currently constitutes our universe, including the laws, forces, bright and dark matter and the whole shebang, were once, and through several brief stages of expansion, concentrated into a uniform (if changing), particle-less pre-mass. Why insert some mathematical or extra-dimensional deus ex machina when there is an observable quality of our universe, quantum indeterminacy, that rather neatly describes the transition from uniformity to divergence?

Originally Posted by Taosaur

What sort of big bang would be preceded by something other than a singularity? The very concept of a big bang is that everything that currently constitutes our universe, including the laws, forces, bright and dark matter and the whole shebang, were once, and through several brief stages of expansion, concentrated into a uniform (if changing), particle-less pre-mass. Why insert some mathematical or extra-dimensional deus ex machina when there is an observable quality of our universe, quantum indeterminacy, that rather neatly describes the transition from uniformity to divergence?

Because randomness is a nonsense concept. Also, not all physicists agree that the big bang came from a singularity. There is the possibility that the universe was just really concentrated but with a finite size.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Because randomness is a nonsense concept. Also, not all physicists agree that the big bang came from a singularity. There is the possibility that the universe was just really concentrated but with a finite size.

Perhaps this doesn't belong in a philosophical discussion, but if there's a God, why can't he enforce randomness?

Originally Posted by Koalaman

Perhaps this doesn't belong in a philosophical discussion, but if there's a God, why can't he enforce randomness?

I don't believe there is one.

Originally Posted by Koalaman

Perhaps this doesn't belong in a philosophical discussion, but if there's a God, why can't he enforce randomness?

If there is a Gigantic Platypus born of a Maroon Orang-utan presiding on Mars, why can't he enforce randomness?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Because randomness is a nonsense concept. Also, not all physicists agree that the big bang came from a singularity. There is the possibility that the universe was just really concentrated but with a finite size.

And I find determinism a nonsense concept, trying to have your cake and eat it, too. All physicists do agree that the billiard-ball mechanics behind the materialist argument for determinism don't tell the whole story. Quantum superposition is a reality; it has recently been demonstrated in a visible-scale object: http://io9.com/5497720/first-quantum...visible-object

At any rate, the math and physics at this point don't conclusively support or refute determinism, and as Xaq pointed out a while back, it's possible and even likely that the nature of our existence precludes them from doing so. I can only tell you that as evident as it is to you that the universe is in a fixed state that will yield another--one and only one--fixed state, it is equally evident to me that the forms in our present awareness are not as solid and events are not happening as rigidly or exclusively as we imagine they do. Reality experienced as forms and events is so transitory, so conditional and contingent that to talk about it being predetermined gives it too much credit, overestimating the extent to which it exists at all.