Taking Down Determinism

[westprog]

Sure they can. A circle exists such that its center is at the center of gravity of the sun and the points on the circumference of the circle are the points' centers of gravity which are 1 kilometer from the sun's center of gravity.

The value of an approximation of Pi is not determined by the physical nature of the universe...either.

Since we know that the sun's gravitational field distorts space, the circle doesn't exist even as a theoretical set of points. The sun doesn't have an exact centre of gravity at any given time. The universe doesn't, in fact, work that way. There is no flat three dimensional space. The concept is deeply ingrained in our way of looking at the world, but we have come to learn that it isn't real.

However, pi is real, and has an exact value. It's always had that value and always will. It's entirely deterministic. Whenever we look, that's the value it has. It's impossible for it to have any other value, in any conceivable universe.

 

[epix]

So, you think that until mental awareness existed nothing in the universe could be circular. And that that is not "absurd".

The way you arrived at this conclusion is an unchartable road.

 

[epix]

Are you now claiming that "the value of Pi" was determined by some prior state of the universe before geometry?

I led him to the subject of particle decay, so Bill T.75 reached for Wiki

Wikipedia, "Pi",

"Although not a physical constant, Pi appears routinely in equations describing fundamental principles of the Universe, due in no small part to its relationship to the nature of the circle and, correspondingly, spherical coordinate systems. Using units such as Planck units can sometimes eliminate Pi from formulae."

and confirmed what I said.
Wouldn't you chose a physical constant rather than mathematical one to argue your point concerning the physical states of the universe?

Btw, what is the circumference of circular reasoning?

 

[H'ethetheth]

A circle exists such that its center is at the center of gravity of the sun and the points on the circumference of the circle are the points' centers of gravity which are 1 kilometer from the sun's center of gravity.

That would be one of those conceptions that exist only in your brain (okay, and in mine now), made using euclidean axioms and logic.

But alright, let's say that space-time is continuous, so that it is possible to even find any points in space-time that are exactly 1 km i.e. 3.33564095 10^-6 light seconds away from the center of gravity, and assume that it is possible to locate said center of gravity with infinite precision.
I am 100% confident that this line in not precisely 6.28318531...etc. kilometers long, because space-time simply isn't perfectly flat.

Refutation of your entire previous argument: Circles existed before Euclid was born.

Yes they did, but what Euclid did was to formalize the abstractions and axioms people had informally assumed. That is, the logical structure already existed, but in a more intuitive way.

**ETA for clarity: Perfect circles, of course, did not exist before there was anything to conceive of them.

Also, you are arguing that the physical universe defines the existence of abstract objects.

Yes it does. Abstractions cannot exist without something to make them. Every single thing that is capable of making abstractions is a physical thing, so physical things predate abstractions of physical things.

The ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter predated any mathematical model in history.

That is just ridiculous. A circle is a mathematical model. It's the mathematical model of a round thing.

 

[The Man]

Wouldn't you chose a physical constant rather than mathematical one to argue your point concerning the physical states of the universe?

A question I’ve been wondering about myself, epix.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Could you please be more specific about the question you are asking?

Nevermind, I thought you knew what you were talking about.

“no barrier?” An entirely deterministic universe precludes any non-determinism. “calculations, reading, etc” would be, well, mechanisms you cite for said ‘entry’ of your “information“. If they aren’t entirely deterministic than the universe was already not entirely deterministic.

Those mechanisms are deterministic, but the information they introduce is not.

What, “not immutable?” If the universe has and/or can go from entirely deterministic to non-deterministic (in at lest some extent) then they are, well, entirely mutable, by your own assertion.

Yes, that is my assertion. (not immutable = mutable)

Really? Where did I claim the following “arguments and reasoning” …

…as “"simply labeling"“?

Right after you cut off that quote.

Everyone here, but you, seems more than willing to have a rational debate about the current status of determinism. When you finally catch up to current interpretations inherent in that debate, please let us know.

I established the relevant interpretation in this post.

If your think that such debate over “hundreds or thousands of years” hasn’t changed the arguments, assertions, assumptions, definitions, and interpretations, then your are just naive and poor, like poor Laplace.

I established the relevant interpretation in this post.

As I’ve already said explicitly before you evidently hold that belief, so I guess your also just a poor reader.

It has been provided to you many times, you do understand that "the value of Pi" is both an irrational and transcendental number, don’t you?

Since the type of quantity that Pi represents is irrelevant to the nature of the value of Pi, you demonstrates nothing of relevance.

"the value of Pi" as an abstract concept of geometry did not, only approximations of that value did. That has already been pointed out to you.

Using an approximation of the value of Pi would not change my argument at all.

Are you now claiming that "the value of Pi" was determined by some prior state of the universe before geometry?

Again, if you understood my argument then you would know that that is exactly the opposite of what I have claimed.

You’re just incompetent “in presentation” of any argument about the current state of the debate about the determinism of the universe and evidently simply ignorant, apparently deliberately so, even of your own assertions.

Nope, evidently that is just you.

Try actually studying the history of those debates over those “hundreds or thousands of years” and the current state of that debate. You evidently just what to take the debate back 100 years.

This response is 100% irrelevant to the quote that it followed.

Again your “definition” was demonstrated to be “inept” about a hundred years ago. Please tell us how you have a prior state of universe that began a finite time ago.

Every state of the universe has a prior state of universe that began a finite time ago (except for the initial state of the universe).

No they base that decision on the outcome being deterministic. That determinism is based on the cited deterministic relations. Were this not the case some force you apply to the steering wheel could result in a torque of the opposite direction on the steering column, or none at all. You apparently have no idea what the debate on determinism is currently about.

This part of the debate is about your confusing idea that actions determine the value of Pi...

In physics such rotational (or even radial) actions are determined by a subtended angle, measured in radians.

...or that angles determine actions.

Giving them applicability to all circles. Would you like to guess what is the proportion of a rotation (Cycle) to a radian (Rad)?

Cycle/Rad = 2Pi

Oh, and before you inquire, much of the actions that you take everyday and expect some deterministic result (even though you may not realize it, though fortunately someone else did) are based on that deterministic proportion. A simple consequence of our modern technological society.

None of my actions, even the deterministic ones, are based on that proportion. This demonstrates your complete confusion about this topic.

 

[westprog]

Sure they can. A circle exists such that its center is at the center of gravity of the sun and the points on the circumference of the circle are the points' centers of gravity which are 1 kilometer from the sun's center of gravity.

The value of an approximation of Pi is not determined by the physical nature of the universe...either.

The centre of gravity of the sun is almost certainly not an exact position that can be precisely defined. There's no perfectly exact definition of a kilometer.

It's quite probable that there's no such thing as a point, if space is quantised.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Since we know that the sun's gravitational field distorts space, the circle doesn't exist even as a theoretical set of points.

Interesting point. I wonder how many mathematicians would agree that a circle cannot exist even in theory or that a plane cannot be geometrically described which can intersect a non-planar space.

The sun doesn't have an exact centre of gravity at any given time.

The center of gravity of an object is a geometric property of an object, located by a geometric point, and a property that the sun has by the fact that it has mass.

The universe doesn't, in fact, work that way. There is no flat three dimensional space. The concept is deeply ingrained in our way of looking at the world, but we have come to learn that it isn't real.

But we have learned that geometry can describe flat three dimensional space. And that makes it clear that Pi is independent of the shape of the universe.

However, pi is real, and has an exact value. It's always had that value and always will. It's entirely deterministic. Whenever we look, that's the value it has. It's impossible for it to have any other value, in any conceivable universe.

Although your usage of "deterministic" is vague, I agree that the value of Pi is unrelated to any property of the universe.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

I led him to the subject of particle decay, so Bill T.75 reached for Wiki

and confirmed what I said.

and confirmed what I said

"Pi has a value that is not determined by any physical state of the universe."

Wouldn't you chose a physical constant rather than mathematical one to argue your point concerning the physical states of the universe?

Only if I didn't understand the opening post.

Btw, what is the circumference of circular reasoning?

It's constantly without value.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Interesting point. I wonder how many mathematicians would agree that a circle cannot exist even in theory or that a plane cannot be geometrically described which can intersect a non-planar space.

Do you read what you write? The whole point is that it is precisely possible to describe these things in theory. A theory being a conceptual framework; a model or abstraction of certain aspects of reality.

Getting back to the Donald Duck example from a little upthread, you might as well argue that the lines that describe a drawing of mr. Duck have always existed, independent of human existence, or the universe.

Would you?

 

[Dr.Sid]

Only way to tell if the universe is deterministic, would be to stop it, copy it several times, then run all the copies .. and to watch if they all run the same for the rest of the time.
Fact that we can't predict quantum phenomenons or fact that we don't fully understand consciousness yet or pi are all irrelevant.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

That would be one of those conceptions that exist only in your brain (okay, and in mine now), made using euclidean axioms and logic.

But alright, let's say that space-time is continuous, so that it is possible to even find any points in space-time that are exactly 1 km i.e. 3.33564095 10^-6 light seconds away from the center of gravity, and assume that it is possible to locate said center of gravity with infinite precision.
I am 100% confident that this line in not precisely 6.28318531...etc. kilometers long, because space-time simply isn't perfectly flat.

I am defining a geometrically flat plane that intersects our space-time.

Yes they did, but what Euclid did was to formalize the abstractions and axioms people had informally assumed. That is, the logical structure already existed, but in a more intuitive way.

**ETA for clarity: Perfect circles, of course, did not exist before there was anything to conceive of them.

Did imperfect circles exist?

Yes it does. Abstractions cannot exist without something to make them. Every single thing that is capable of making abstractions is a physical thing, so physical things predate abstractions of physical things.

So, it seems you are saying that a circle is an abstraction of a circular physical thing, which implies that circles existed before circles existed.

That is just ridiculous. A circle is a mathematical model. It's the mathematical model of a round thing.

Let's assume round things existed before the mathematical models of them did. What is the value of the ratio of the circumference of a round thing to the diameter of the round thing?

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

The centre of gravity of the sun is almost certainly not an exact position that can be precisely defined. There's no perfectly exact definition of a kilometer.

It's quite probable that there's no such thing as a point, if space is quantised.

Since I have been using plane geometry throughout this post, let's stick with that.

The center of gravity is a geometric point; we can define a geometric kilometer without any problem; we don't need to quantize plane geometry.

 

[H'ethetheth]

I am defining a geometrically flat plane that intersects our space-time.

So you're conceiving a space-time that can by definition not be part of this universe, and then ask me to say whether something in that space-time can be said to exist?

Did imperfect circles exist?

Round things exist. Extremely round things, in fact.

So, it seems you are saying that a circle is an abstraction of a circular physical thing, which implies that circles existed before circles existed.

No, it implies that round things existed before circles were conceived of.
The earth is rounder than most precision-engineered round things, despite Everest, centrifugal bulge and what not. It's very round, but its circumference is not exactly pi times larger than its diameter.

Let's assume round things existed before the mathematical models of them did. What is the value of the ratio of the circumference of a round thing to the diameter of the round thing?

Some number close to pi, obviously.

 

[westprog]

Interesting point. I wonder how many mathematicians would agree that a circle cannot exist even in theory or that a plane cannot be geometrically described which can intersect a non-planar space.

Why not ask one? Most mathematicians don't even care about the "real world".

The center of gravity of an object is a geometric property of an object, located by a geometric point, and a property that the sun has by the fact that it has mass.

No. It's a physical property.

But we have learned that geometry can describe flat three dimensional space. And that makes it clear that Pi is independent of the shape of the universe.



Although your usage of "deterministic" is vague, I agree that the value of Pi is unrelated to any property of the universe.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Do you read what you write? The whole point is that it is precisely possible to describe these things in theory. A theory being a conceptual framework; a model or abstraction of certain aspects of reality.

It's really difficult to tell if you agree or disagree with the following statement or just couldn't follow the debate.

"Since we know that the sun's gravitational field distorts space, the circle doesn't exist even as a theoretical set of points."

Getting back to the Donald Duck example from a little upthread, you might as well argue that the lines that describe a drawing of mr. Duck have always existed, independent of human existence, or the universe.

Would you?

I would argue that your analogy really misses the point.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Only way to tell if the universe is deterministic, would be to stop it, copy it several times, then run all the copies .. and to watch if they all run the same for the rest of the time.
Fact that we can't predict quantum phenomenons or fact that we don't fully understand consciousness yet or pi are all irrelevant.

If the universe is non-deterministic couldn't a copy still run the same?
If we could go back in time and watch the original would it run differently?

We don't need to rerun the universe if we can prove determinism is false to begin with.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

So you're conceiving a space-time that can by definition not be part of this universe, and then ask me to say whether something in that space-time can be said to exist?

Huh? I am saying that plane geometry can be defined in the space-time of our universe. I am sure that that has already happened.

Round things exist. Extremely round things, in fact.

No, it implies that round things existed before circles were conceived of.
The earth is rounder than most precision-engineered round things, despite Everest, centrifugal bulge and what not. It's very round, but its circumference is not exactly pi times larger than its diameter.

So then, the roundness of things is not to be confused with the roundness of circles.

Some number close to pi, obviously.

An approximation of Pi works for my proof also.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Why not ask one? Most mathematicians don't even care about the "real world".

No. It's a physical property.

From NASA, Glenn Research Center website:
"The center of gravity is a geometric property of any object."

From the Encyclopedia Britannica website:
"centre of gravity, in physics, imaginary point in a body of matter"

 

[H'ethetheth]

It's really difficult to tell if you agree or disagree with the following statement or just couldn't follow the debate.

"Since we know that the sun's gravitational field distorts space, the circle doesn't exist even as a theoretical set of points."

It exists as a conceived set of existing positions in space, given the assumption that space-time is a continuum, and given the assumption that it is possible to determine the center of gravity of the sun with infinite precision.
It exists in the same way as the portrait of Donald Duck inscribed in that circle.

I would argue that your analogy really misses the point.

Go on then: Why and how does it?
Isn't it a specific geometrical arrangement that is quite independent of whether or not it was ever conceived?