Determinism Dilemma?

[The Atheist]

This may make no sense whatsoever, as determinism and associated philosophies has taken up about 1 X 10^-563rd of my thinking so far, but I do like cards, and got thinking about the two subjects together.

Aside from uranium whatever it is, determinism seems to be fairly widely accepted as reasonable and tends to trump the free will argument.

Anyway, I'm playing cards, and the rules of cards and determinism mean I deal what I deal, according to how I shuffle them. Now, if I shuffle the cards upon picking them up, or if I delay it for a few seconds, does this change the random result of the shuffle?

Is the determined shuffle the next shuffle of the cards, or only if I shuffle them at any given second.

I would expect that the determined shuffle is only for a precise instant in time, as the different movement of the hands will lead to a different result, depending on when they are shuffled.

It seems to me that for determinism to be worth calling a philosophy, the determined shuffle would need to be the next shuffle. Without that, the idea seems to skate so close to infinity of options that it's a meaningless concept.

Or is this all the kind of utter rubbish Schrodinger used to think up when he was pissed?

 

[Rairun]

I don't understand what you mean by "the determined shuffle." No determinist would say there is some sort of plan to the universe that would cause you to get the same cards regardless of the circumstances. The whole point is that the circumstances determine the outcome, i.e. if you change any important variables, the results will necessarily be different.

 

[cambion]

Doesn't our current understanding of quantum physics point to the idea that the the universe is probabilistic, not deterministic? Not that that would necessarily have any bearing on the free will argument.

 

[KingMerv00]

Doesn't our current understanding of quantum physics point to the idea that the the universe is probabilistic, not deterministic?

My understanding of quantum physics tells me that the probabilistic issues of the very small (quarks) do not have a measurable effect on the very large (playing cards). That is why you never see a playing card quantum tunnel its way into the apartment next door.

 

[KingMerv00]

Anyway, I'm playing cards, and the rules of cards and determinism mean I deal what I deal, according to how I shuffle them. Now, if I shuffle the cards upon picking them up, or if I delay it for a few seconds, does this change the random result of the shuffle?

The delay itself does not but if the delay causes you to shuffle differently, then yes. Of course this doesn't mean you actually had free will to dely or not.

 

[Roboramma]

My understanding of quantum physics tells me that the probabilistic issues of the very small (quarks) do not have a measurable effect on the very large (playing cards). That is why you never see a playing card quantum tunnel its way into the apartment next door.

Well, quantum behavior at a macro scale is different from probabilistic events having an influence on macro scale outcomes.

After all, if they didn't, then it would impossible for us to have observed them, us being macro-entities. I mean, if the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics couldn't have an effect on macro scales, I wouldn't be talking about them (because I wouldn't know that they exist).

More clearly: if this electron is over here rather than there, then that atom bounces this way rather than that, which causes it to collide with this other atom, which... etc. The macro scale outcome might be very different from if that electron had happened to be over there.

 

[plumjam]

Determinists would argue that your feeling that you have the choice to freely delay the card shuffle is simply an illusion, and that your mental processes leading up to the timing of the shuffle are just as determined as the outcome of the shuffle itself.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Unless you know how to stack the deck, what does it change?

 

[Dancing David]

This may make no sense whatsoever, as determinism and associated philosophies has taken up about 1 X 10^-563rd of my thinking so far, but I do like cards, and got thinking about the two subjects together.

Aside from uranium whatever it is, determinism seems to be fairly widely accepted as reasonable and tends to trump the free will argument.

Anyway, I'm playing cards, and the rules of cards and determinism mean I deal what I deal, according to how I shuffle them. Now, if I shuffle the cards upon picking them up, or if I delay it for a few seconds, does this change the random result of the shuffle?

Is the determined shuffle the next shuffle of the cards, or only if I shuffle them at any given second.

I would expect that the determined shuffle is only for a precise instant in time, as the different movement of the hands will lead to a different result, depending on when they are shuffled.

It seems to me that for determinism to be worth calling a philosophy, the determined shuffle would need to be the next shuffle. Without that, the idea seems to skate so close to infinity of options that it's a meaningless concept.

Or is this all the kind of utter rubbish Schrodinger used to think up when he was pissed?

Maybe there is a difference in the use of the terms 'causal' and 'determined'. One is that causes may be found for effects. the second one has many meaning one of which is 'outcome can be determined'.

 

[Beerina]

This may make no sense whatsoever, as determinism and associated philosophies has taken up about 1 X 10^-563rd of my thinking so far, but I do like cards, and got thinking about the two subjects together.

Aside from uranium whatever it is, determinism seems to be fairly widely accepted as reasonable and tends to trump the free will argument.

Minor quibble -- free will is the freedom to choose. It's the choosing that is determinism at work. It's not an issue of ethics, and punishment for wrongdoing is still applicable since consideration of same is one of the inputs to your deterministic thought processes.

And "truly random" quantum stuff may percolate up via the butterfly effect, making the future truly unpredictable, and the past completely lost (I always wondered how this affected the "information is never destroyed" issue) but that doesn't (necessarily) have anything to do whatsoever with the mind, thinking, and how the conscios experience arise out of "stuff".

Anyway, I'm playing cards, and the rules of cards and determinism mean I deal what I deal, according to how I shuffle them. Now, if I shuffle the cards upon picking them up, or if I delay it for a few seconds, does this change the random result of the shuffle?

Is the determined shuffle the next shuffle of the cards, or only if I shuffle them at any given second.

A shuffle at any given point is determined -- at that point. They may very well yield different results at different moments.

This "determinism" is at a much finer grain than you are considering. It's at the level of particles bouncing around and interacting, not at the macroscopic level, which just reflects that in a gross sense.

I would expect that the determined shuffle is only for a precise instant in time, as the different movement of the hands will lead to a different result, depending on when they are shuffled.

It seems to me that for determinism to be worth calling a philosophy, the determined shuffle would need to be the next shuffle. Without that, the idea seems to skate so close to infinity of options that it's a meaningless concept.

Well, yes, when physicists and philosophers talk about "finite" with respect to this, they do mean things lilke your aforementioned 1 X 10-563, but as odds for this or that. The (far beyond) astronomical size of those numbers arises quickly when you look at permutations of hexillions of molecules and whatnot, and the multiplicative nature of angle after angle as things bounce around. But it's still finite.

Or is this all the kind of utter rubbish Schrodinger used to think up when he was pissed?

pissed : adj English for drunk.

 

[cambion]

My understanding of quantum physics tells me that the probabilistic issues of the very small (quarks) do not have a measurable effect on the very large (playing cards). That is why you never see a playing card quantum tunnel its way into the apartment next door.

I agree. I should have clarified. I was just making the point that determinism does indeed break down at a small enough scale. That's why I said quantum theory shouldn't really effect free will (or the lack thereof), because brain processing is still - for all practical purposes - deterministic.

Determinists would argue that your feeling that you have the choice to freely delay the card shuffle is simply an illusion, and that your mental processes leading up to the timing of the shuffle are just as determined as the outcome of the shuffle itself.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[GreedyAlgorithm]

I was just making the point that determinism does indeed break down at a small enough scale.

Not if Many Worlds is true! Then reality is the wavefunction!

 

[The Atheist]

I don't understand what you mean by "the determined shuffle." No determinist would say there is some sort of plan to the universe that would cause you to get the same cards regardless of the circumstances. The whole point is that the circumstances determine the outcome, i.e. if you change any important variables, the results will necessarily be different.

Fine, that's what I would have thought.

Every millisecond, my hands will be in a slightly different position, thus changing the result.

Doesn't our current understanding of quantum physics point to the idea that the the universe is probabilistic, not deterministic? Not that that would necessarily have any bearing on the free will argument.

The delay itself does not but if the delay causes you to shuffle differently, then yes. Of course this doesn't mean you actually had free will to dely or not.

I'm not really interested in the free will argument.

Determinists would argue that your feeling that you have the choice to freely delay the card shuffle is simply an illusion, and that your mental processes leading up to the timing of the shuffle are just as determined as the outcome of the shuffle itself.

Yes, I know, and that's where the problem comes in, to me. How about if I decide to hum the first three lines of Wish you were here before every deal? I am amusical and cannot keep time or tune, so each time, the length will be different, so the shuffle will be different.

Unless you know how to stack the deck, what does it change?

It changes the hand, the outcome, and if there's money at stake, my financial situation.

Well, yes, when physicists and philosophers talk about "finite" with respect to this, they do mean things lilke your aforementioned 1 X 10^{-563, but as odds for this or that. The (far beyond) astronomical size of those numbers arises quickly when you look at permutations of hexillions of molecules and whatnot, and the multiplicative nature of angle after angle as things bounce around. But it's still finite.}

Sure, but when those numbers relate to human life, they're so large as to be completely meaningless. I shudder to think how an algorithm could be worked out which would even give a clue as to what the odds of any event happening are. This being the case, what is the point of a doctrine which claims determinism when it's immeasurable?

pissed : adj English for drunk.

:bgrin:

 

[GreedyAlgorithm]

This being the case, what is the point of a doctrine which claims determinism when it's immeasurable?

'cause if you don't claim determinism, then there's something else, and that something would almost certainly be incredibly useful to find, and then why aren't you researching it??

And all of your "but I'll decide to sing a little longer" things are irrelevant, since that too would have been determined. The decoupling of the "shuffle" action from the rest of reality is in your model of reality, not in reality.

 

[The Atheist]

'cause if you don't claim determinism, then there's something else, and that something would almost certainly be incredibly useful to find, and then why aren't you researching it??

It's not something which bothers me enough to bother with spending the rest of my life looking for it. While I agree with the principle, in practice, it says nothing.

And all of your "but I'll decide to sing a little longer" things are irrelevant, since that too would have been determined. The decoupling of the "shuffle" action from the rest of reality is in your model of reality, not in reality.

It's not a question of intending to sing longer, the length will be different every time, since I have no sense of musical timing. I cannot control that at all. Sure, it was determined that I am amusical, but I don't see the differences in length of the tune being able to be determined.

 

[plumjam]

Yes, I know, and that's where the problem comes in, to me. How about if I decide to hum the first three lines of Wish you were here before every deal? I am amusical and cannot keep time or tune, so each time, the length will be different, so the shuffle will be different.

It wouldn't change anything. Strict determinists (I'm not one) would say, as GreedyAlgorithm says, that all these things are equally part of the unavoidable causal chain. (I'm not really sure what the problem you're alluding to is).
Of course such an outlook makes a complete mockery of morality.. praise, reward, blame, punishment etc..
When determinists feel/express anger towards Fred for Fred's actions it makes about as much sense as blaming a robot for its own malfunction. (To be more precise it's actually a robot blaming another robot.. which is even more bizarre)
Tends though, IMO, to be a pretty barren debate because if a strict determinist is determined (geddit?) to believe in determinism then they can always hold the faith, despite our daily lives forever indicating that we do indeed have free will. If this daily lived experience is not going to convince someone then I'm not sure what would.

 

[The Atheist]

It wouldn't change anything. Strict determinists (I'm not one) would say, as GreedyAlgorithm says, that all these things are equally part of the unavoidable causal chain. (I'm not really sure what the problem you're alluding to is).

The problem is determinism itself - it just seems to make no sense. Looks as though we agree on that, albeit for different reasons.

Of course such an outlook makes a complete mockery of morality.. praise, reward, blame, punishment etc..

That's for those determined determinists.

 

[blobru]

This may make no sense whatsoever, as determinism and associated philosophies has taken up about 1 X 10^-563rd of my thinking so far, but I do like cards, and got thinking about the two subjects together.
...
Or is this all the kind of utter rubbish Schrodinger used to think up when he was pissed?

I think even shuffling cards is subject to the "utter rubbish" of quantum indeterminacy.

Say for example you do a rip shuffle. The precise moment the flexed corner of a card flicks off your thumb is subject to some very slight quantum effects, which may of course have affected its order when you merge the deck halves (Schneibster had a long post to this effect in a thread Shemp started about dice about a year or so ago).

 

[KingMerv00]

Tends though, IMO, to be a pretty barren debate because if a strict determinist is determined (geddit?) to believe in determinism then they can always hold the faith, despite our daily lives forever indicating that we do indeed have free will.

This isn't a logical argument against determinism. It is wish thinking.

 

[KingMerv00]

The problem is determinism itself - it just seems to make no sense. Looks as though we agree on that, albeit for different reasons.

I'm still not seeing how it makes no sense. Please explain for the slowest member of the class. (i.e. me)