Taking Down Determinism

[epix]

Not even close.

In that case let me quote great philosopher by conversion and humanist of the 21st century Dave Rogers.

The hallmark of a faith-based position is that it cannot be refuted by evidence that directly opposes it.

At 34.54607 seconds after the Big Bang, the value of Pi was 2.14159265... In the formulas devised by the cosmologists to see how all those quarks flew into the show, the number always appears as Pi-1. They never suspected . . .

 

[The Man]

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

Well, it was your question, I thought you actually might have known what you were asking.

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

Which again makes your ascription of “non-deterministic information” a meaningless label.

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

Then the universe was already non-deterministic to some extent, otherwise determinism would not be mutable.

Right after you cut off that quote.

Really? Here is the following line…

However, your simple presumption of non-deterministic aspects of the universe (by you simply labeling some information in the universe as “non-deterministic”) again only proves that you are just presuming some non-deterministic aspects of the universe.

… where does that statement claim the preceding “arguments and reasoning” in that post “as "simply labeling"“?


Do you have problems reading or do you simply confuse your ridiculous argument, “proof” and reasoning with “all arguments and reasoning”?

I established the relevant interpretation in this post.



I established the relevant interpretation in this post.

An interpretation that fails with an initial state of a universe that began some finite time ago.

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

The “type of quantity that Pi represents” is “the nature of the value of Pi”.

That you evidently simply want to ignore the actual “nature of the value of Pi” only demonstrates that you’re not interested in actually discussing your “poof” based on "the value of Pi".

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

Indeed, it still fails.

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

The point exactly, you're claiming that Pi is ‘introduced’ as your “non-deterministic information“, and cite…

Fact 2: Circles existed before geometry.

…when presented with the fact that "the value of Pi" was determined and ‘introduced’ by our abstract concept(s) of geometry.

So unless circles ‘introduced’ Pi “before geometry” your assertion is meaningless. If circles did “introduce” Pi “before geometry” then Pi was ‘introduced’ in a prior state of the universe “before geometry”. So in order for your claim of the ‘introduction’ of Pi as your “non-deterministic information” to be consistent with your assertion about the prior existence of circles there must have been some prior state of the universe where circles did not exist. Care to tell us when that might have been?

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

Well it is no surprise that you feel your apparent lack of knowledge about the current debate on determinism in the universe is “irrelevant” to your “argument” and ridiculous “proof” about determinism in the universe .

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).

So requiring “a prior state of universe” fails “for the initial state of the universe”, looks like you’ve found one of the flaws in your “proof” not to mention your “relevant interpretation in this post“. Oh, wait I already mentioned that before.

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

Again, as already pointed out to you many times, it is our abstract concept(s) of geometry that determine the value of Pi. The point is, as you still seem to be missing it, that such actions based on Pi (even just physical approximations of that value) are still deterministic and again the action is taken because the outcome is expected to be deterministic (even though you may not realize that deterministic outcome is based on Pi, though fortunately someone else did).

Therefore, any action based upon the value of Pi is independent of deterministic causality.

That is your claim and it is demonstrably false.

...or that angles determine actions.

Really, so when you turn your steering wheel to some appropriate angle for your car to go the direction you want, you don’t stop turning the wheel? Perhaps you stop before that angle is reached?

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

You simply demonstrate your lack of knowledge about the technology you use every day. Again a simple consequence of our modern technological society.

By all means please, give us an example of “non-deterministic” actions you take?

 

[The Man]

Further, if you prove that Socrates is mortal with 3.1415 ounces of poison then his death is non-deterministically caused.

What a laugh, you must have had about 3.1415 too many bowls of ‘Crazy-O’s’ before posting that.

Given that approximate values of Pi are claimed valid for your “proof,” would 3.2 or just 3 ounces also be “non-deterministic”? Where does the applicability of the approximations end? Does one even have to know how much or is it only the amount that matters. In other words can it randomly be a “non-deterministic” amount or does it have to deterministically be a “non-deterministic” amount?


Why ounces? Why not grams, dynes or grains? Is 3.1415 grams, dynes or grains also “non-deterministic”? How about 97.562 grams, 95679 dynes or 1374.4 grains


Why poison? Would 3.1415 tons of lead work as well, “non-deterministically” that is? How about 6283 pounds?



ETA:

How about if we just make up our own units called Pis which are 3.1415 times any other units and sub Pis that are any other units divided by 3.1415.

So 1 gram is 3.1415 Pi-grams and 3.1415 grams is 1 sub Pi-gram. Now just about everything can be “non-deterministically caused”.

Ain’t crazy fun??!!

 

[epix]

For brevity, without detailed analysis, here are some theorems I have developed.

I. Information that is independent of causality is non-deterministic.
II. Action that is based on non-deterministic information is non-deterministic.
III. A system that contains non-deterministic action is non-deterministic.

These three propositions are actually axioms, not theorems, and as such, they sit outside the circular reasoning fallacy. They include key terms information, causality, action, system that you build a theorem from. Remember that "legitimate" axioms cannot be proven and circular reasoning can only sneak into the proof discussion.

I don't dare to look further, though.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

In that case let me quote great philosopher by conversion and humanist of the 21st century Dave Rogers.

At 34.54607 seconds after the Big Bang, the value of Pi was 2.14159265... In the formulas devised by the cosmologists to see how all those quarks flew into the show, the number always appears as Pi-1. They never suspected . . .

If I thought that you were a mathematician/cosmologist then I would believe that you are not misinterpreting whatever it is that you are interpreting.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Well, it was your question, I thought you actually might have known what you were asking.

Which again makes your ascription of “non-deterministic information” a meaningless label.

Then the universe was already non-deterministic to some extent, otherwise determinism would not be mutable.

Really? Here is the following line…

… where does that statement claim the preceding “arguments and reasoning” in that post “as "simply labeling"“?

Do you have problems reading or do you simply confuse your ridiculous argument, “proof” and reasoning with “all arguments and reasoning”?

An interpretation that fails with an initial state of a universe that began some finite time ago.

You constantly demonstrate that you still do not understand the idea of determinism.

The “type of quantity that Pi represents” is “the nature of the value of Pi”.

That you evidently simply want to ignore the actual “nature of the value of Pi” only demonstrates that you’re not interested in actually discussing your “poof” based on "the value of Pi".

The fact that Pi irrational and transcendental does not determine its value.

Indeed, it still fails.

The point exactly, you're claiming that Pi is ‘introduced’ as your “non-deterministic information“, and cite…

…when presented with the fact that "the value of Pi" was determined and ‘introduced’ by our abstract concept(s) of geometry.

So unless circles ‘introduced’ Pi “before geometry” your assertion is meaningless. If circles did “introduce” Pi “before geometry” then Pi was ‘introduced’ in a prior state of the universe “before geometry”. So in order for your claim of the ‘introduction’ of Pi as your “non-deterministic information” to be consistent with your assertion about the prior existence of circles there must have been some prior state of the universe where circles did not exist. Care to tell us when that might have been?

This proves your complete confusion on this topic.

Well it is no surprise that you feel your apparent lack of knowledge about the current debate on determinism in the universe is “irrelevant” to your “argument” and ridiculous “proof” about determinism in the universe .

So requiring “a prior state of universe” fails “for the initial state of the universe”, looks like you’ve found one of the flaws in your “proof” not to mention your “relevant interpretation in this post“. Oh, wait I already mentioned that before.

This proves your complete lack of understanding of determinism.

Again, as already pointed out to you many times, it is our abstract concept(s) of geometry that determine the value of Pi. The point is, as you still seem to be missing it, that such actions based on Pi (even just physical approximations of that value) are still deterministic and again the action is taken because the outcome is expected to be deterministic (even though you may not realize that deterministic outcome is based on Pi, though fortunately someone else did).

It doesn't matter what the concepts or axioms of geometry are, the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of the thing that we currently call a circle is a constant value, irregardless of the definitions of any geometry and the physical universe.

That is your claim and it is demonstrably false.

And yet you offer no demonstration, only double-babble.

Really, so when you turn your steering wheel to some appropriate angle for your car to go the direction you want, you don’t stop turning the wheel? Perhaps you stop before that angle is reached?

Whatever I do it is not determined by an equation that I have no thought of.

You simply demonstrate your lack of knowledge about the technology you use every day. Again a simple consequence of our modern technological society.

Everyday I do not depend upon knowing the equations of physics to get by.

By all means please, give us an example of “non-deterministic” actions you take?

9 5 1 4 1 3

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

What a laugh, you must have had about 3.1415 too many bowls of ‘Crazy-O’s’ before posting that.

Given that approximate values of Pi are claimed valid for your “proof,” would 3.2 or just 3 ounces also be “non-deterministic”? Where does the applicability of the approximations end? Does one even have to know how much or is it only the amount that matters. In other words can it randomly be a “non-deterministic” amount or does it have to deterministically be a “non-deterministic” amount?

Why ounces? Why not grams, dynes or grains? Is 3.1415 grams, dynes or grains also “non-deterministic”? How about 97.562 grams, 95679 dynes or 1374.4 grains

Why poison? Would 3.1415 tons of lead work as well, “non-deterministically” that is? How about 6283 pounds?

ETA:

How about if we just make up our own units called Pis which are 3.1415 times any other units and sub Pis that are any other units divided by 3.1415.

So 1 gram is 3.1415 Pi-grams and 3.1415 grams is 1 sub Pi-gram. Now just about everything can be “non-deterministically caused”.

Ain’t crazy fun??!!

Any action based on a non-deterministic value would work. The fact that you are mixing deterministic values with non-deterministic values demonstrates your lack of understanding.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

These three propositions are actually axioms, not theorems, and as such, they sit outside the circular reasoning fallacy. They include key terms information, causality, action, system that you build a theorem from. Remember that "legitimate" axioms cannot be proven and circular reasoning can only sneak into the proof discussion.

I don't dare to look further, though.

I explicitly said that I developed them as theorems, which clearly implies that I built them from other concepts. Axioms are developed through processes different from processes to develop theorems.

 

[epix]

9 5 1 4 1 3

We must determine who wrote those first 6 digits of Pi backward. Since there are 6 digits, the clue is out of the box.

Pi is a turn in opposite direction and God said, "Be fruitful and multiply." Therefore

951413 x 314159 = 298894956667

Hmm. That figures...
Conclusion: The devil is determinable -- no need to pray to St. Theorem.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

We must determine who wrote those first 6 digits of Pi backward. Since there are 6 digits, the clue is out of the box.

It was me.

Pi is a turn in opposite direction and God said, "Be fruitful and multiply." Therefore

951413 x 314159 = 298894956667

Hmm. That figures...
Conclusion: The devil is determinable -- no need to pray to St. Theorem.

I am become non-determinable.

 

[epix]

It was me.
I am become non-determinable.

But that's hardly so: Bill Thompson 75.

What happened here? 7___5.

Well, the digits split to accommodate another digit.

What digit?

A digit that belongs between 7 and 5, and that's 6.

But if it's so, how come that there is a space between 7 and 5 created to accommodate three digits, not just one. Take a peak: 7_6_5.

Hmm. I see. Well, not all causes to a change can be determined.

But they say that things happen for a reason.

Well, Only God knows what that split is all about.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6418647#post6418647

298894956667 backward = 76665...

 

[The Man]

You constantly demonstrate that you still do not understand the idea of determinism.

You constantly demonstrate that your “idea of determinism” does not involve any self-consistent or generally consistent interpretation of determinism.

The fact that Pi irrational and transcendental does not determine its value.

Once again it is our abstract concept(s) of geometry that “determine its value” as well as the “type of quantity that Pi represents” which is “the nature of the value of Pi”.

This proves your complete confusion on this topic.

Once again, you’re apparently the only one confused here and the interesting part is that it is just you that is confusing yourself.

This proves your complete lack of understanding of determinism.

Oh no!!! I’m being accused of a “complete lack of understanding of determinism” by someone who’s “understanding of determinism” is exemplified by their assertion that someone’s death by poisoning is “non-deterministically caused” if it was some particular value of some units of poison. I might just die laughing if it wasn't so ironically pitiful.

Not to mention that given your standard of “poof” exemplified in this thread, your claim is hardly a meaningful assertion

If you simply don’t want to make you previous claims consistent with each other, then that is simply your problem

It doesn't matter what the concepts or axioms of geometry are, the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of the thing that we currently call a circle is a constant value, irregardless of the definitions of any geometry and the physical universe.

“the thing that we currently call a circle is” one of the “concepts” and “definitions” of geometry.

And yet you offer no demonstration, only double-babble.

I have offered it and once again you offer it to yourself everyday, that you evidently simply want to ignore those demonstrations everyday, is just your problem.

Whatever I do it is not determined by an equation that I have no thought of.

So is that your problem? That you simply can’t accept that what you think or are simply ignorant of is irrelevant to what will happen based on those equations? Fortunately for you (as I’ve said already), someone else (far less ignorant than you) already thought of it, so you don’t have to and thus you can remain blissfully and evidently deliberately ignorant. Once again the reason you do take a lot of the actions you do is because of your expectation that the outcome will be deterministic, which is a direct result of those equations being applied by someone else sometime before.

Everyday I do not depend upon knowing the equations of physics to get by.

Your simple and apparently willing ignorance of those relations does not mitigate your dependence on those relations in anyway. I many ways your life literally depends upon that fact that someone not only knew those “equations of physics”, but was also correct in their deterministic application.

9 5 1 4 1 3

I didn’t ask for some numerical representation that you consider “non-deterministic”, I specifically asked for “an example of “non-deterministic” actions you take”.

If you can not at least describe the action, in some specific detail, then don’t bother just giving some inane result of that action.

 

[The Man]

Any action based on a non-deterministic value would work. The fact that you are mixing deterministic values with non-deterministic values demonstrates your lack of understanding.

The questions asked in that post pertained specifically to which values you thought were “non-deterministic” and why. If you can’t answer or simply don’t what to answer such simple and direct questions about your “idea of determinism” then it is simply you that does not understand your own “idea of determinism”.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

But that's hardly so: Bill Thompson 75.

What happened here? 7___5.

Well, the digits split to accommodate another digit.

What digit?

A digit that belongs between 7 and 5, and that's 6.

But if it's so, how come that there is a space between 7 and 5 created to accommodate three digits, not just one. Take a peak: 7_6_5.

Hmm. I see. Well, not all causes to a change can be determined.

But they say that things happen for a reason.

Well, Only God knows what that split is all about.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6418647#post6418647

298894956667 backward = 76665...

Finally, something that makes sense.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

You constantly demonstrate that your “idea of determinism” does not involve any self-consistent or generally consistent interpretation of determinism.

It has not been shown otherwise.

Once again it is our abstract concept(s) of geometry that “determine its value” as well as the “type of quantity that Pi represents” which is “the nature of the value of Pi”.

Being a ratio does not make Pi irrational and transcendental. Being irrational and transcendental does not make Pi the ratio between circumference and diameter.

Once again, you’re apparently the only one confused here and the interesting part is that it is just you that is confusing yourself.

Oh no!!! I’m being accused of a “complete lack of understanding of determinism” by someone who’s “understanding of determinism” is exemplified by their assertion that someone’s death by poisoning is “non-deterministically caused” if it was some particular value of some units of poison. I might just die laughing if it wasn't so ironically pitiful.

Not to mention that given your standard of “poof” exemplified in this thread, your claim is hardly a meaningful assertion

If you simply don’t want to make you previous claims consistent with each other, then that is simply your problem

“the thing that we currently call a circle is” one of the “concepts” and “definitions” of geometry.

The ideas of circle and circular things existed before definitions and geometry.

I have offered it and once again you offer it to yourself everyday, that you evidently simply want to ignore those demonstrations everyday, is just your problem.

So is that your problem? That you simply can’t accept that what you think or are simply ignorant of is irrelevant to what will happen based on those equations? Fortunately for you (as I’ve said already), someone else (far less ignorant than you) already thought of it, so you don’t have to and thus you can remain blissfully and evidently deliberately ignorant. Once again the reason you do take a lot of the actions you do is because of your expectation that the outcome will be deterministic, which is a direct result of those equations being applied by someone else sometime before.

Your simple and apparently willing ignorance of those relations does not mitigate your dependence on those relations in anyway. I many ways your life literally depends upon that fact that someone not only knew those “equations of physics”, but was also correct in their deterministic application.

The universe has gotten along just well for billions of years without a single physical equation.

I didn’t ask for some numerical representation that you consider “non-deterministic”, I specifically asked for “an example of “non-deterministic” actions you take”.

Such as typing those numbers.

If you can not at least describe the action, in some specific detail, then don’t bother just giving some inane result of that action.

You really don't get it.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

The questions asked in that post pertained specifically to which values you thought were “non-deterministic” and why. If you can’t answer or simply don’t what to answer such simple and direct questions about your “idea of determinism” then it is simply you that does not understand your own “idea of determinism”.

"My" idea of determinism has been around for hundreds of years.

Your challenges are directed at an idea of determinism that did not exist before it formed in your mind.

 

[The Man]

It has not been shown otherwise.

Exactly the point and I’m glad you agree. So when are you going to start to try showing it to be “otherwise” by making your ““idea of determinism” both self-consistent and generally consistent?

Being a ratio does not make Pi irrational and transcendental.

That ratio not being of integers does. Being a number that can not be represented as ratio of integers is precisely the definition of an irrational number and exactly what makes Pi an irrational number. However, while all transcendental numbers are irrational not all irrational numbers are transcendental.

Try actually learning something as opposed to just spouting whatever nonsense comes into your head.

Being irrational and transcendental does not make Pi the ratio between circumference and diameter.

Yeah it does because “the ratio between circumference and diameter” is specifically, well, “irrational and transcendental”. If it’s not both “irrational and transcendental” then it’s not “Pi the ratio between circumference and diameter”.

Perhaps you simply meant to say that just being “irrational and transcendental does not make” some number “the ratio between circumference and diameter”. Which of course would be true, but irrelevant to Pi which is specifically “the ratio between circumference and diameter” as well as both “irrational and transcendental”.

Try actually learning something as opposed to just spouting whatever nonsense comes into your head.

The ideas of circle and circular things existed before definitions and geometry.

Oh, by all means please, describe to us these “ideas of circle and circular things” that don’t define a “circle and circular things”?

In case you don’t realize it the “ideas of circle and circular things” are the definitions “of circle and circular things” as those ideas become more detailed and abstract so too do the definitions they represent.


Try actually learning something as opposed to just spouting whatever nonsense comes into your head.

So are you now claiming that Pi was determined by some prior state of the universe with “The ideas of circle and circular things”?

The universe has gotten along just well for billions of years without a single physical equation.

Oh, so now you’re “The universe”, is that it? Why how solipsistic of you.

You do understand that those equations are just representations of our understanding of the relationships by which “The universe has gotten along just well for billions of years”, don’t you? As well as the relationships by which the universe ‘gets along’ today. Including, specifically as mentioned before, how you manage to 'get along' in the universe everyday (particularly in our modern technological society), even though you simply choose to remain ignorant of them, but again fortunately someone else wasn’t.

Try actually learning something as opposed to just spouting whatever nonsense comes into your head.

Such as typing those numbers.

So typing just those numbers or those numbers is some particular order? Would typing 5 1 1 4 3 9 be a “non-deterministic” action, as it is “typing those numbers”? Why those numbers and not others? If ordering is a factor then why some particular order or ordering?

You really don't get it.

Indeed I do, you’re simply fixated on some particular brand of your own numerology involving the value of (and even just the numerals in the value of) Pi. The problem is that you simply “really don't get it” or much of anything and evidently just don’t want to.

 

[The Man]

"My" idea of determinism has been around for hundreds of years.

Really, please show any evidence of your assertion indicating that anyone (other than you) has claimed Pi as “non-deterministic” information or actions based on Pi are “non-deterministic” and that such an “ idea of determinism has been around for hundreds of years”?

Your challenges are directed at an idea of determinism that did not exist before it formed in your mind.

No, Bill Thompson 75, my challenges and questions are directed specifically at your “idea of determinism that did not exist before it formed in your mind”.

One of the challenges you still seem to be missing is directed at an interpretation of determinism that in fact “has been around for hundreds of years”. Unfortunately that interpretation rests on the assumption of an infinite regression, a popular assumption (particularly among scientists) some hundreds of years ago. That there was always some prior state of the universe which could be the cause of some current state. Again that interpretation fails for a universe that began some finite time ago, a current assumption of science based on our current evidence. So again your “idea of determinism” that you claim “has been around for hundreds of years” fails because it is based on an outdated interpretation of determinism from “hundreds of years” ago that is no longer consistent with our current evidence and understanding. By your own standard of “determinism” given in this thread the entire universe must be “non-deterministic” as its initial conditions are not “causally determined completely” by any previous state of the universe. If you are going to provide some exclusion or exception for the initial state of the universe then you also provide the perfect way for your “non-deterministic information” of Pi to be ‘introduced’ and the universe remain entirely deterministic proceeding from that exempt initial condition.

You haven’t really thought about any of this or put much critical thought into your “proof” at all, have you?

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Exactly the point and I’m glad you agree. So when are you going to start to try showing it to be “otherwise” by making your ““idea of determinism” both self-consistent and generally consistent?

It still has has not been shown otherwise.

That ratio not being of integers does. Being a number that can not be represented as ratio of integers is precisely the definition of an irrational number and exactly what makes Pi an irrational number. However, while all transcendental numbers are irrational not all irrational numbers are transcendental.


Yeah it does because “the ratio between circumference and diameter” is specifically, well, “irrational and transcendental”. If it’s not both “irrational and transcendental” then it’s not “Pi the ratio between circumference and diameter”.

Perhaps you simply meant to say that just being “irrational and transcendental does not make” some number “the ratio between circumference and diameter”. Which of course would be true, but irrelevant to Pi which is specifically “the ratio between circumference and diameter” as well as both “irrational and transcendental”.

You are completely clueless about the relationship between the type of a number and the value of a number, as you just demonstrated.

Oh, by all means please, describe to us these “ideas of circle and circular things” that don’t define a “circle and circular things”?

In case you don’t realize it the “ideas of circle and circular things” are the definitions “of circle and circular things” as those ideas become more detailed and abstract so too do the definitions they represent.

You consider any thought, no matter how primitive, as constituting a definition.

So are you now claiming that Pi was determined by some prior state of the universe with “The ideas of circle and circular things”?

You show your complete ignorance again, by stating the opposite of the truth.

Oh, so now you’re “The universe”, is that it? Why how solipsistic of you.

My bad, your ignorance was not yet complete.

You do understand that those equations are just representations of our understanding of the relationships by which “The universe has gotten along just well for billions of years”, don’t you? As well as the relationships by which the universe ‘gets along’ today. Including, specifically as mentioned before, how you manage to 'get along' in the universe everyday (particularly in our modern technological society), even though you simply choose to remain ignorant of them, but again fortunately someone else wasn’t.

I would bet that most people that drive an automobile everyday never once think about the chemical reactions going on inside the engine.

So typing just those numbers or those numbers is some particular order? Would typing 5 1 1 4 3 9 be a “non-deterministic” action, as it is “typing those numbers”? Why those numbers and not others? If ordering is a factor then why some particular order or ordering?

Here you prove you haven't understood my points so you rebut them with misunderstanding.

Indeed I do, you’re simply fixated on some particular brand of your own numerology involving the value of (and even just the numerals in the value of) Pi. The problem is that you simply “really don't get it” or much of anything and evidently just don’t want to.

So now you think Pi involves numerology.

I bet you are into astrology too. Your sign is the crab, sidestepping every issue that blocks your nonsense.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Really, please show any evidence of your assertion indicating that anyone (other than you) has claimed Pi as “non-deterministic” information or actions based on Pi are “non-deterministic” and that such an “ idea of determinism has been around for hundreds of years”?

See how you confuse my idea of the non-deterministic nature of Pi with the idea of determinism. If you cannot separate those two, you will never understand anything I have been saying.

No, Bill Thompson 75, my challenges and questions are directed specifically at your “idea of determinism that did not exist before it formed in your mind”.

If you had researched the idea of determinism before you began posting your gibberish it wouldn't have been quite so gibberishish.

One of the challenges you still seem to be missing is directed at an interpretation of determinism that in fact “has been around for hundreds of years”. Unfortunately that interpretation rests on the assumption of an infinite regression, a popular assumption (particularly among scientists) some hundreds of years ago. That there was always some prior state of the universe which could be the cause of some current state. Again that interpretation fails for a universe that began some finite time ago, a current assumption of science based on our current evidence. So again your “idea of determinism” that you claim “has been around for hundreds of years” fails because it is based on an outdated interpretation of determinism from “hundreds of years” ago that is no longer consistent with our current evidence and understanding.

My OP was clear on the definition of determinism I was using and minimal research will show that it is still a common viewpoint today.

By your own standard of “determinism” given in this thread the entire universe must be “non-deterministic” as its initial conditions are not “causally determined completely” by any previous state of the universe. If you are going to provide some exclusion or exception for the initial state of the universe then you also provide the perfect way for your “non-deterministic information” of Pi to be ‘introduced’ and the universe remain entirely deterministic proceeding from that exempt initial condition.

If you want to argue your own version of determinism you are free to start a thread on it. Trolling in this thread to get someone to listen to your idiosyncratic views is disingenuous.

You haven’t really thought about any of this or put much critical thought into your “proof” at all, have you?

Enough to recognize your lack of comprehension.