Guest
Unregistered
G
The quantum of idiocy: the moronotron.
Determinism - a scientific or a philosophical position?
- Thread starter Beth Paulkey
- Start date
-
- Tags
- determinism scientific
Beth Paulkey
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2002
- Messages
- 19
No, the quantum soon-to-be called the sarcasmatron. Chill Bill.
When Dr. Stupid returns perhaps he can supply the appropriate context for the "strictly speaking nothing is causal" statement. You'd agree that it's subject to some odd interpretations?
When Dr. Stupid returns perhaps he can supply the appropriate context for the "strictly speaking nothing is causal" statement. You'd agree that it's subject to some odd interpretations?
Guest
Unregistered
G
Beth Paulkey said:
No, Paul, I won't. You are spouting nonsense once again. You have a problem with "causation?" then dispense with the legal system. Tear up your bible, too. The concept is that basic to both the universe and the social, moral and legal constructs that bind our society.
Cheers,
Beth Paulkey
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2002
- Messages
- 19
Well, no. I would like to understand Dr. Stupid's statement. Can you help me out or not?
Just pretend I'm being serious for a minute.
By the way, I'm not Paul. What the heck would he be posting in science for anyway?
Just pretend I'm being serious for a minute.
By the way, I'm not Paul. What the heck would he be posting in science for anyway?
Stimpson J. Cat
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2001
- Messages
- 1,949
Ian,
You obviously mean something different by "verify" than I do. The above is not limited to scientific theories, though. It applies to any claim that is not purely abstract/mathematical.
Simply not true. This is a strawman position that blatantly ignores the fact that scientific theories are not allowed to be ad-hoc. The old argument that any theory can be "kept alive" by introducing new assumptions, ignores the fact that doing so violates Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor requires that the theory only make claims that are logically necessary to imply the testable predictions made by the theory. This means that if the theory's predictions are shown to be wrong, then this directly implies that at least one of the claims of the theory are wrong. The theory is thus falsified.
You can, of course, create a new theory that is similar to the original one, but it must be a new theory. You cannot simply add more assumptions. You must change some of the assumptions the original theory made.
incidentally, this is exactly the problem with "nonlocal hidden variables" hypotheses. They attempt to "save" determinism by introducing ad-hoc explanations for our observations. The fact that they are able to do so is a direct indication that determinism is not a scientific theory. If it were, no such add-hoc explanations would be possible. This is the problem with metaphysics in general. You just keep adding one add-hoc hypothesis after the other, continuously increasing the complexity of the "explanation", without every actually providing any real explanatory power.
I am not a determinist, nor do I consider determinism to be a scientific hypothesis, nor do I assume it is true.
It is not a presupposition of science.
Who appointed you as the defender of the word "verify"? The above is exactly what is meant by it in the scientific context.
Not true. Many theories have been falsified, but most of them have not. Of course, many of the scientific theories that play a huge role in our lives are ones we all take for granted, and often don't even think of as scientific theories. For example, the theory that eating food will satisfy your hunger, or that drinking water will quench your thirst, or that cutting yourself will cause pain.
Of course, all of these things are very intuitive for us. They are "common sense". But often times such common sense is wrong. It is the scientific method which allows us to conclude these things through reason[/b], instead of intuition.
Also obviously not true.
Nor are they intended to. They are intended to provide an accurate model of reality.
I am not a determinist. Anyway, your above conclusion is wrong. For one thing, the hypothesis of Naturalism is one scientific theory that has never been falsified. So much for the first premise of your above line of reasoning.
Dr. Stupid
You obviously mean something different by "verify" than I do. The above is not limited to scientific theories, though. It applies to any claim that is not purely abstract/mathematical.
Simply not true. This is a strawman position that blatantly ignores the fact that scientific theories are not allowed to be ad-hoc. The old argument that any theory can be "kept alive" by introducing new assumptions, ignores the fact that doing so violates Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor requires that the theory only make claims that are logically necessary to imply the testable predictions made by the theory. This means that if the theory's predictions are shown to be wrong, then this directly implies that at least one of the claims of the theory are wrong. The theory is thus falsified.
You can, of course, create a new theory that is similar to the original one, but it must be a new theory. You cannot simply add more assumptions. You must change some of the assumptions the original theory made.
incidentally, this is exactly the problem with "nonlocal hidden variables" hypotheses. They attempt to "save" determinism by introducing ad-hoc explanations for our observations. The fact that they are able to do so is a direct indication that determinism is not a scientific theory. If it were, no such add-hoc explanations would be possible. This is the problem with metaphysics in general. You just keep adding one add-hoc hypothesis after the other, continuously increasing the complexity of the "explanation", without every actually providing any real explanatory power.
I am not a determinist, nor do I consider determinism to be a scientific hypothesis, nor do I assume it is true.
It is not a presupposition of science.
Who appointed you as the defender of the word "verify"? The above is exactly what is meant by it in the scientific context.
Not true. Many theories have been falsified, but most of them have not. Of course, many of the scientific theories that play a huge role in our lives are ones we all take for granted, and often don't even think of as scientific theories. For example, the theory that eating food will satisfy your hunger, or that drinking water will quench your thirst, or that cutting yourself will cause pain.
Of course, all of these things are very intuitive for us. They are "common sense". But often times such common sense is wrong. It is the scientific method which allows us to conclude these things through reason[/b], instead of intuition.
Also obviously not true.
Nor are they intended to. They are intended to provide an accurate model of reality.
I am not a determinist. Anyway, your above conclusion is wrong. For one thing, the hypothesis of Naturalism is one scientific theory that has never been falsified. So much for the first premise of your above line of reasoning.
Dr. Stupid
Guest
Unregistered
G
Beth Paulkey said:
Moronotron,
You have no interest in understanding. I have no interest in who you are. Stimpy's statement was very clear, but you are just one of those here who think there is an unjustified metaphysical assumption afoot in science. There isn't. We have had endless theads discussing this, and yet we just keep hearing the same, tired old drone.
Cheers,
Beth Paulkey
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2002
- Messages
- 19
For heaven's sake, Bill, I'll leave, but haven't you been channelling a bit too much Franko these days?
Where have we discussed anything before? Never mind....
Where have we discussed anything before? Never mind....
Stimpson J. Cat
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2001
- Messages
- 1,949
Beth,
The statement "Strictly speaking, nothing is causal" is meant in the same way is "strictly speaking, energy is not conserved". At the most fundamental level, many of the physical laws we take for granted do not apply.
Conservation of momentum and energy are things that happen "on average", but do not apply to fundamental particles.
Likewise, causality is something that happens "on average". Take your computer, for example. Surely that is a system that is based entirely on the principle of causality? And yet the most basic components of it, the transistor, rely on acausal quantum events, namely electrons crossing a potential threshold. Each of those events is acausal. Nothing "causes" any particular electron to cross the threshold at any particular time. But on average, the resulting behavior is very predictable, and very much a causal process.
Of course, you don't need QM to understand this phenomena. Just look at a gambling casino. The individual transactions are all games of chance, but the overall cash flow through the casino is not very random at all. The amount of money they make in any given month can very reliably be calculated in terms of the rules of the games they provide, and the number of people who play.
Dr. Stupid
The statement "Strictly speaking, nothing is causal" is meant in the same way is "strictly speaking, energy is not conserved". At the most fundamental level, many of the physical laws we take for granted do not apply.
Conservation of momentum and energy are things that happen "on average", but do not apply to fundamental particles.
Likewise, causality is something that happens "on average". Take your computer, for example. Surely that is a system that is based entirely on the principle of causality? And yet the most basic components of it, the transistor, rely on acausal quantum events, namely electrons crossing a potential threshold. Each of those events is acausal. Nothing "causes" any particular electron to cross the threshold at any particular time. But on average, the resulting behavior is very predictable, and very much a causal process.
Of course, you don't need QM to understand this phenomena. Just look at a gambling casino. The individual transactions are all games of chance, but the overall cash flow through the casino is not very random at all. The amount of money they make in any given month can very reliably be calculated in terms of the rules of the games they provide, and the number of people who play.
Dr. Stupid
Guest
Unregistered
G
Stimpson J. Cat said:
Stimpy,
Strictly speaking, aren't you wasting your time and effort with this one? He's only in it for the preaching...
Cheers,
Interesting Ian
Unregistered
I
Beth Paulkey said:
I think I know what he means. Certain events in the microscopic realm only have a probabilistic chance of occurring, be that 10%, 50%, or 90% or whatever. This is true innate randomness we're talking about here. Now Stimpy asserts that if there is only a probabilistic chance of an event occurring, but the event nevertheless occurs, then that event is "acausal".
Now the inherent randomness in the microscopic realm carries over to the macroscopic realm. Although the probability in the macroscopic realm of an event occurring, given the appropriate anticedent conditions, is so close to 100% as to make no difference, technically the probability of that event occurring is ever so slightly below 100%. Therefore all events are technically "acausal".
Of course I do not agree with his definition of "acausal". To me an event is acausal if it arose spontaneously with no anticedent conditions which would allow us to predict that event, either with certitude or probabilistically.
Interesting Ian
Unregistered
I
BillHoyt said:
What are you babbling on about Bill?? We're talking about physical causation here. And her name is Beth.
Interesting Ian
Unregistered
I
Beth Paulkey said:
For God's sake don't go because of BillHoyt! The guys just a complete arsehole. I've hardly read anything of Paul Bethkey but it seems to me you're clearly not him. The fact that he thinks you are him illustrates BillHoyts stupidity possibly even more effectively than even anything I could convey. Just tell BillHoyt to f*ck off.
Stimpson J. Cat said:
We've whacked this horse a few times too.
And I'd say you are being ingenuous with the "energy not conserved" thought. If you look at the "entangled system" of the fundamental particle's surroundings is energy not conserved?
Also -- using your own recent definition -- what would you say actually occurs "randomly"? Is "probable" random or deterministic? I say -- deterministic.
Stimpson J. Cat
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2001
- Messages
- 1,949
hammegk,
No.
We don't know whether anything is really random, or if it is really deterministic, but acausal and indistinguishable from random. In general use, I refer to things which are acausal as random, because it is simpler than saying "possibly random, but also possibly deterministic but acausal and thus indistinguishable from random".
Besides, the distinction between "random" and "acausal" is only really meaningful for abstract systems. When it comes to reality, the fact that they are indistinguishable renders the semantic distinction meaningless.
Dr. Stupid
No.
We don't know whether anything is really random, or if it is really deterministic, but acausal and indistinguishable from random. In general use, I refer to things which are acausal as random, because it is simpler than saying "possibly random, but also possibly deterministic but acausal and thus indistinguishable from random".
Besides, the distinction between "random" and "acausal" is only really meaningful for abstract systems. When it comes to reality, the fact that they are indistinguishable renders the semantic distinction meaningless.
Dr. Stupid
Guest
Unregistered
G
Interesting Ian said:
Do you think about things before you spout off? First, I direct you to Beth's first few posts. You will see the connection between Paul Bethke and Beth Paulkey. Oh, wait, that would be evidence, wouldn't it, and Ian doesn't do evidence.
Second, trace the bullet example backwards in time and explain to me when it shifted from physical to non-physical.
Cheers,
Umm, ok. We do agree that on average energy is conserved.Stimpson J. Cat said:
Now, how do we go from "average & conservation" to some other state? It may be the time dimension that is troubling me here over your "no".
At least your semantics sit up & beg on cue.
Jeff Corey
New York Skeptic
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2001
- Messages
- 13,714
As an experimental psychologist, I make some assumptions about behavior.
It is caused.
The causes are potentially knowable.
The experimental method is a good idea if you want to demonstrate functional relationships between independent variables and dependent variables.
If you have a replicable functional relationship as described above, you're about as close to causality as yer ever gonna get.
It is caused.
The causes are potentially knowable.
The experimental method is a good idea if you want to demonstrate functional relationships between independent variables and dependent variables.
If you have a replicable functional relationship as described above, you're about as close to causality as yer ever gonna get.
Stimpson J. Cat
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2001
- Messages
- 1,949
Hammegk,
I don't understand the question.
Dr. Stupid
I don't understand the question.
Dr. Stupid
Stimpson J. Cat said:
Stimpson,
My previous question was referred to this point. I mean, we should distinguish whether or not something IS really random from whether or not it seems to be random or acausal.
You said before that:
Here you imply that events CANNOT be caused by prior conditions.
Later, you wrote otherwise regarding Underemployment's post. There he said that Science declares randomness when in fact this is so because we don't know how random events really behave.
Apologies if I seem to be a little bit bitchy, but I cannot get rid of this doubt. When it seems that you have already answered my question, then you come with comments like this one which brings again doubts to my head.
Do you think that a deterministic explanation may exist? Could you elaborate?
Q-S