Determinism - a scientific or a philosophical position?

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Q-Source,

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:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Universe is not temporally causal, which is to say that there are events which are not, and cannot, be caused by the conditions prior to the event.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Random = non-deterministic.

Deterministic <> Causal.

Causality is a type of determinism. We know that there are acausal events. We do not know, nor do we have any way of knowing, whether they are truly nondeterministic (random), or acausal but still deterministic.

From a mathematical point of view, there is a distinction between acausal and random. From a practical point of view, the distinction is meaningless.

We don't. We just don't conclude that it wasn't random either. We don't know. But until such time as a deterministic explanation is found, our description of the event must be made in terms of randomness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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?

No, I don't. But I do not claim to understand the mathematics involved well enough to say for certain whether such an explanation is, in principle, impossible, or whether we are just unable to conceive of how such an explanation could be possible.

The point is that a causal explanation is impossible, and that until somebody comes up with a deterministic acausal one, we have no choice but to describe these phenomena in terms of random processes. And if a deterministic one truly is impossible, then it is meaningless to distinguish between an acausal but deterministic model, and a random one.

Dr. Stupid

 

[Interesting Ian]

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.

No I don't see any connection.

Oh, wait, that would be evidence, wouldn't it, and Ian doesn't do evidence.

What evidence is there that Beth Paulkey is one and the same person as Paul Bethkey? You can tell she's a girl from the way she writes anyway.

Second, trace the bullet example backwards in time and explain to me when it shifted from physical to non-physical.

What bullet example?

 

[Interesting Ian]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They cannot be verified. The reason why the falsifiability criteria was introduced in the first place was due to the recognition that scientific theories cannot be verified but only ever falsified
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You obviously mean something different by "verify" than I do.

I mean the same as everyone else in the world means by it, oh, apart from you apparently. Namely to establish something as being true.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(although arguably scientific theories cannot be falsified either).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Simply not true.

Your change of the subject is noted.

And as always you are wrong. Auxiliary hypotheses can always be introduced to save a theory.

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.

Ockhams razor is not really appllicable. For a kick off suppose that there were no competing theories waiting to take its place? One is not going to abandon a theory simply because of some putative anomaly or anomalies. And besides maybe some artefact is producing the anomaly. No no, you're being hopelessly naive.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Besides your argument is viciously circular. What you are effectively doing is presupposing that "determinism" (in its appropriately modified sense) is true, and challenging people to prove it is not true by falsifying it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I am not a determinist, nor do I consider determinism to be a scientific hypothesis, nor do I assume it is true.

Note what I said. I repeat "what you are effectively doing is presupposing that "determinism" (in its appropriately modified sense) is true". To explain again, I mean by this that all change in the Universe can be described comprehensively by physical laws. I just use "determinism" in quotes as a shorthand way of referring to this idea. Not strictly speaking determinism no, but close to it in spirit.

And if determinism is not a scientific hypothesis there seems little reason to suppose that "determinism" is.

In the rest of the post you fail to understand the difference between determinism and "determinism", so I shall ignore those parts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You misunderstand the nature of science in any case. All scientific theories in the past ever proposed have eventually been falsified.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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.

These are not scientific theories.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus by induction it might be reasonable to suppose that all our present and future theories will eventually be falsified.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Also obviously not true.

A scientist rejecting inductive reasoning!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other words none of our scientific theories depict reality as it really is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Nor are they intended to. They are intended to provide an accurate model of reality.

Your second sentence directly contradicts the first in that in the second you are presupposing there is something over and above our theories ie reality.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus if "determinism" is a scientific theory then if follows that "determinism" is false. Are you sure you want to go down this path?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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.

Make your mind up! Is naturalism a hypothesis or is it a theory? Could you tell me how one would falsify naturalism?

 

[Guest]

No I don't see any connection.


What evidence is there that Beth Paulkey is one and the same person as Paul Bethkey? You can tell she's a girl from the way she writes anyway.

Look, Ian, if you're that desperate, then ask "her" for a date. Just don't go whining when "she" disrobes, okay? I told you: read the first "Beth" posts.

What bullet example?

Quintessential Ian. Accuses me of babbling and he hasn't read the previous posts. Doesn't use the search engine. Won't look through the telescope.

 

[SFB]

Beth,

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.
Dr. Stupid

I gotta wonder whether a sudden surge of acausal events caused my Blue-Screen-of-Death this morning...'Cause I sure didn't predict it! Didn't even really want it. I wasn't running too many applications, happened to be on this board, had Outlook open and one other app., when BAM out of the blue, it just died.




Edited for speling.

 

[hammegk]

Hammegk,

I don't understand the question.

Dr. Stupid

I think you are saying energy is not conserved within time/enegy constraints per Heisenberg.

My point is that the amount of "borrowed" energy to produce a real particle is just that -- borrowed. And the total of new particle + borrowed = is exactly offset by the decline in the otherwise available energetic system that is being borrowed from. I.E. over a somewhat larger portion of (energetic but empty) spacetime which includes the new particle while it exists, energy IS conserved.

That larger portion may be the entire what-is I suppose, although would not just local effect (in light cone) handle it?

I don't know if this question may, or definitely does not, impact on the topic of determinism. Sorry.

 

[RichardR]

In the rest of the post you fail to understand the difference between determinism and "determinism", so I shall ignore those parts.

Is anyone looking for a new sig?

 

[BillyJoe]

Paul, would you like that visit from Maxwell?

 

[BillyJoe]

My point is that the amount of "borrowed" energy to produce a real particle is just that -- borrowed. And the total of new particle + borrowed = is exactly offset by the decline in the otherwise available energetic system that is being borrowed from. I.E. over a somewhat larger portion of (energetic but empty) spacetime which includes the new particle while it exists, energy IS conserved.

I think that was exactly Stimpy's point.....

Over a somewhat smaller portion of spacetime, energy IS NOT conserved.

In other words....
On a macroscopic scale energy is conserved.
On a microscopic scale, energy is not conserved.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

I mean the same as everyone else in the world means by it, oh, apart from you apparently. Namely to establish something as being true.

Well, apparently not everyone. In science, the term verification very specifically refers to scientific testing of the theory, meaning attempts at falsification.

Besides, what you are describing is synonymous with "proof", and thus completely inapplicable to claims about reality. It is not possible, even in principle, to ever demonstrate that anything (outside of formal logical statements) is true. The best that can be done is to demonstrate that it is probably true, through application of the scientific method.

(although arguably scientific theories cannot be falsified either).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Simply not true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your change of the subject is noted.

My change of subject? You are the one who has changed the subject by attacking the validity of the scientific method. I simply responded to your comment.

And as always you are wrong. Auxiliary hypotheses can always be introduced to save a theory.

No, they cannot. Not without rendering the hypothesis unscientific. You can always modify the theory, but if it was a scientific theory, then falsification means that assumptions of the theory must be changed. Adding additional auxiliary hypotheses won't save it.

Case in point: There is no set of auxiliary hypotheses that can save Newtonian physics.

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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ockhams razor is not really appllicable. For a kick off suppose that there were no competing theories waiting to take its place? One is not going to abandon a theory simply because of some putative anomaly or anomalies.

Since when is a putative anomaly a falsification? If the theory is reliably demonstrated to be wrong, then it will be abandoned, whether we have a new one to replace it or not.

And besides maybe some artefact is producing the anomaly. No no, you're being hopelessly naive.

You are being naive, by suggesting that the scientific method does not have a mechanism for distinguishing between anomalies due to artifacts, and actual falsifying evidence. If what you are saying were true, science wouldn't work at all!

I am not a determinist, nor do I consider determinism to be a scientific hypothesis, nor do I assume it is true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note what I said. I repeat "what you are effectively doing is presupposing that "determinism" (in its appropriately modified sense) is true". To explain again, I mean by this that all change in the Universe can be described comprehensively by physical laws. I just use "determinism" in quotes as a shorthand way of referring to this idea. Not strictly speaking determinism no, but close to it in spirit.

Oh, you mean naturalism. Those are completely different concepts.

And if determinism is not a scientific hypothesis there seems little reason to suppose that "determinism" is.

Except that strict determinism is not falsifiable, and naturalism is.

In the rest of the post you fail to understand the difference between determinism and "determinism", so I shall ignore those parts.

Perhaps you should have been more clear?

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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are not scientific theories.

Why not? Are they falsifiable hypotheses? All the scientific method is, is a formalism of the basic process of reasoning that we have used for millenia.

Thus by induction it might be reasonable to suppose that all our present and future theories will eventually be falsified.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also obviously not true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A scientist rejecting inductive reasoning!

The scientific method is not simply the blind application of inductive reasoning. If it were, it would be complete nonsense!

In other words none of our scientific theories depict reality as it really is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nor are they intended to. They are intended to provide an accurate model of reality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your second sentence directly contradicts the first in that in the second you are presupposing there is something over and above our theories ie reality.

Of course I do. How is that contradictory?

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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Make your mind up! Is naturalism a hypothesis or is it a theory?

Both. A theory is a type of hypothesis.

Could you tell me how one would falsify naturalism?

I already did. Simply provide reliable evidence that some particular phenomenon cannot be described in terms of natural laws.


hammegk,

I think you are saying energy is not conserved within time/enegy constraints per Heisenberg.

That is not what I am saying. Not even close.

My point is that the amount of "borrowed" energy to produce a real particle is just that -- borrowed. And the total of new particle + borrowed = is exactly offset by the decline in the otherwise available energetic system that is being borrowed from. I.E. over a somewhat larger portion of (energetic but empty) spacetime which includes the new particle while it exists, energy IS conserved.

This "borrowed" energy notion of yours is not a part of any scientific model of the Universe I know of. It certainly is not a part of the standard model of QM.

Even on the macroscopic scale, energy is only approximately conserved. The total energy of any macroscopic system fluctuates with time. But as is always the case with sums of independent random variables, the standard deviation of those fluctuations is proportional to the square-root of the number of variables involved, but the total is proportional to the number of variables involved. That means that for huge numbers of independent variables, the fluctuations become extraordinarily small, compared to the total energy.

Roll one six-sided die, and the average will be 3.5, with a standard deviation of about 1.7. That's a pretty large variability. But if you role 10^20 such dice, and take the average, then the mean is still 3.5, but the standard deviation will be 1.7 X 10^-10. Suddenly the result seems to be pretty well "conserved" from one trial to the next, doesn't it? Now consider that a single gram of water has more than 10^22 atoms in it.

Dr. Stupid

 

[hammegk]

I think that was exactly Stimpy's point.....

Over a somewhat smaller portion of spacetime, energy IS NOT conserved.

In other words....
On a macroscopic scale energy is conserved.
On a microscopic scale, energy is not conserved.

Er, yes, I'd agree, but go on to point out that using this idea, if I wanted to know "depth of ocean" you would just tell me that everytime you measured, the depth changed.

Tell me, is amount of water in ocean "conserved"? I'm only suggesting that measuring "energy" seems to have the same problem.

 

[BillyJoe]

Seems I need to qualify those statements.....

On the microscopic scale, energy is not conserved. It significantly fluctuates.
On the macroscopic scale, energy is also not conserved. It fluctuates as well but the fluctuation is insignificantly/vanishingly small.

(hammegk, I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by the measuring problem, so I won't comment any further at this point}

 

[slimshady2357]

Look, Ian, if you're that desperate, then ask "her" for a date. Just don't go whining when "she" disrobes, okay? I told you: read the first "Beth" posts.

I read the posts. Used the search engine to see what the first few posts were.

Saw the post where Beth explained that the name was chosen to see if it would slip by Linda.

I saw many posts actually and not one that seemed anything like Paul B. I saw a post mentioning formal logic systems and lots of funny ones too.

I would say that only a moron could think this person was the same individual as Paul B. based on the posts under the two different names.

What's your problem here Bill? Have you had other interactions with Beth Paulkey that would warrant your behaviour? That's the only think I could think of that would excuse your attitude in this thread.

I re-read Beth's posts in this thread too, in case you meant 'first Beth posts [in this thread]'... nothing there either.

Seems like an honest inquest to me.

Unless you can come up with something better than the name is similar.... I think you owe Beth Paulkey an apology.

Adam

 

[Guest]

I read the posts. Used the search engine to see what the first few posts were.

Saw the post where Beth explained that the name was chosen to see if it would slip by Linda....
Unless you can come up with something better than the name is similar.... I think you owe Beth Paulkey an apology.

Adam

Adam,

Read in the context of the thread. Beth registered while Bethke had been banned. Linda permitted the Beth registration and the re-registration of Bethke.

Search with the keywords "Bethke Paulkey." Paradox quoted Linda's administrative post that clearly connects the two. Beth's later post thanked Linda for letting him in even though she knew Beth was an end-run around her banning of Bethke. Why do you think he/she promised to behave?

Cheers,

 

[Soubrette]

Bill

If you search for Linda's posts you will also find one where she states that the addresses of both Paul Bethkey and Beth Paulkey are different.

I don't know if she was referring to their locations or IP though.

Sou

 

[Guest]

Bill

If you search for Linda's posts you will also find one where she states that the addresses of both Paul Bethkey and Beth Paulkey are different.

I don't know if she was referring to their locations or IP though.

Sou

She was probably referring to the email addresses. Anybody can create aliases by using free email services.

Why did "Beth" register around the time Bethke was banned?
Why did Linda "permit" the registration?
Why did "Beth" thank Linda for that?
Why did "Beth" promise Linda "she" would behave?
Why did Linda connect the two names in a single administrative post?

Cheers,

 

[metacristi]

Determinism - a scientific or a philosophical position?

First of all there must be made clear that there is a difference between our capacity to predict and causation following strict rules (real determinism).Chaotic phenomena for example follow strict rules (we are able to write down the equations that govern them,very simple ones in many cases) and still,we are not capable to predict the outcome,especially on long run.Despite our incapacity to predict chaotic phenomena are purely deterministic.

To return at your question,ultimately (at least now),in my opinion,it is a philosophical problem.There is no way now to make the difference between an universe totally predetermined by a God (defined merely as the creator of the universe) or by some 'deeper' purely deterministic laws (a kind of impersonal god,provoking 'random' effects for us) existing from eternity at an 'ultimate reality' (valid in the case of an infinite regress of causes too) and a non deterministic universe.

Ignoring this possibility,in my acception,the problem enters the realm of science at least for the 'domains of definition' we know.If we accept that the different interpretations of QM are scientific hypothesis (I accept this point of view) then we have at least one interpretation that points out that determinism (in what causation is concerned) could be true at least at quantum level.
Bohm's Interpretation extends the notion of determinism at quantum level,quantum phenomena are seen not as random but as chaotic ones.
Still we do not know if 'quantum level' is the 'ultimate level',nothing proves that there cannot exist something 'beyond',so that we enter again in the realm of pure metaphysics:even if determinism is valid at quantum level we can make only pure speculations whether it extends or not beyond that.
Even accepting that there is nothing beyond quantum level we do not know if 'all that is' has the same properties,the same laws.If the 'multi bubble' scenario is true then there could exist an infinity of non interacting universes having different laws,including ones where there are no laws at all.Determinism could be valid in our universe but not in some others.

To conclude I think is better to consider the problem of determinism as belonging totally to the realm of philosophy when dealing with the ontological aspects ('ultimate reality' or an infinite regress of causes).
However if we take in account only the domains we are aware of,I think that the problem of determinism (at least till that level) has already reached the domain of science (be it only as a simple scientific hypothesis,for the moment).

 

[slimshady2357]

Adam,

Read in the context of the thread. Beth registered while Bethke had been banned. Linda permitted the Beth registration and the re-registration of Bethke.

Search with the keywords "Bethke Paulkey." Paradox quoted Linda's administrative post that clearly connects the two. Beth's later post thanked Linda for letting him in even though she knew Beth was an end-run around her banning of Bethke. Why do you think he/she promised to behave?

Cheers,

Ok I had more time to do some looking now that it's lunch time

As far as I can see it, we're both speculating. But I think the posting evidence (by Beth) is the deciding factor that comes down on my side (What I mean is, in my opinion it's what is keeping me thinking Beth is not a Paul sock puppet.

Paradox quoted Linda's administrative post that clearly connects the two

But that admin post only says they tried to register at the same time, it says nothing about them being the same person. Only that Linda had already decided to allow Paul B to re-register, so she allowed both Beth Paulkey and Paul Bethke to register.

I think the fact that Linda did NOT know whether they were the same person is held up by this post by Linda

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=158314#post158314

Beth's later post thanked Linda for letting him in even though she knew Beth was an end-run around her banning of Bethke. Why do you think he/she promised to behave?

No, Linda did NOT know Beth was an end-run around, the post I linked above shows that. I think Beth apologized because she had been 'naughty' in trying her little name experiment to see if Linda would catch it. Not because she actually was Paul. Here is the post in question. While it may look at first that she is Paul, I think the interpretation I am giving easily fits that post too.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=159224#post159224

Your questions to Sou:

Why did "Beth" register around the time Bethke was banned?

She explained this. She wanted to see if Linda would catch the similar name and keep her out

Why did Linda "permit" the registration?

Linda explained this too, she was allowing Paul B to re-register. So, not knowing if Beth Paulkey was Paul or not, she allowed the registration.

Why did "Beth" thank Linda for that?

See above, she had been 'wrong' in trying to slip the similar moniker past Linda

Why did "Beth" promise Linda "she" would behave?

Same reason, since she had already been mischievous

Why did Linda connect the two names in a single administrative post?

The only way they were connected was by Linda saying she was going to allow both to be registered. It seems to me she didn't know if Beth was Paul, but didn't care, she was allowing Paul back as Paul anyway, so she let Beth in too. I think the Linda quote implying she didn't know if Beth was Paul backs that up

I'm not saying that my interpretation of the events is obvious and with out a doubt. But I think there are some things that certainly cast the 'Beth is Paul' thing into serious doubt. As I said at the start of this post the deciding factor for me is Beth's posts. I've been through a couple dozen of them and I cannot find even one example of a post anything like Paul B's style.

Therefore I conclude (with willingness to evaluate the situation further at any time) that Beth is not Paul. And as a final note, given Beth's posts I don't think it matters all that much. Judge the posts from this user on their own.... I think it's someone you could show a little more respect to.

Adam

 

[Q-Source]

BillHoyt,

Why are you so concerned about whether or not Beth is Paul?

WHO CARES?

This person started this thread and made valid questions and points. Everything was going well until you came to hijejack this thread with this nonsense.

Even if it is true, many people have recognised that they have sock puppets here, maybe you also have one. So, what is the point?

Honestly, why do you waste your time and your brilliant brain on this particular individual?

Sincerely,

Q

 

[Guest]

BillHoyt,

Why are you so concerned about whether or not Beth is Paul?

WHO CARES?

This person started this thread and made valid questions and points. Everything was going well until you came to hijejack this thread with this nonsense.

Even if it is true, many people have recognised that they have sock puppets here, maybe you also have one. So, what is the point?

Honestly, why do you waste your time and your brilliant brain on this particular individual?

Sincerely,

Q

I'm not concerned about it. I just called Paul on it. Others are now disagreeing with my interpretation of the facts.

The point is, Paul is still on a mission to undermine the JREF mission. He is more subtle now, not threatening physical violence, not thumping bibles over people's heads. But the mission is there, nonetheless. He is trolling. I am tired of it. I am tired of trolls.

The mission of JREF is to educate the public about all things paranormal. I want to see that mission fulfilled. The trolls get in the way.

If I thought Paul was truly interested in determinism, I would not take swipes at him. Alas, he is not. He is here, trolling, angling for chinks in the rational armor. HE wastes OUR time.


Cheers,