• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Materialism and Immaterialism

I generally agree, but there can't be an uber-universe in which a less complex system can be demonstrated to be deterministic. Observations in that system have their own uncertainty.
 
Wrath of the Swarm said:
I generally agree, but there can't be an uber-universe in which a less complex system can be demonstrated to be deterministic. Observations in that system have their own uncertainty.
Click to expand...

Well, unless this uber-universe somehow operates according to other rules than this one, in which case it might be possible to OBSERVE the processes in the lesser-universe, oh, say (for example) where the "uber-schroedinger wave equation" gives us the answer instead of a probability.

Now, in the uber-universe it might be possible to "prove" (i.e. solve the equations of state) for the lesser universe. But of course it's unlikely that the uber-universe violates Goedel somehow, although we COULD even postulate that, so it's not likely to be able to model itself. Can the uber-universe violate mathematical theorems of this universe? I don't think I can say.

I think we have to allow for that, but I don't find any reason to conclude such a thing exists, or even the existance of an uber-universe.

You do have an interesting shot at a proof by intuition there, don't you?
 
It's not so much a matter of physics as mathematics. Although it's dreadfully abused, the Godel Incompleteness Theorems do come into play here.

Also, we can call them GITs, which is quite amusing.

Anyway, even if the equations for lesser worlds could be solved, it would be impossible to prevent influences from within the uber-world itself from altering the lesser ones and making the equations invalid. The same principle applies in our world - even if we consider a computer to be a perfectly deterministic system, we can't know with certainty what result it will give to any particular problem because unanticipated interactions with the stuff outside the computer can change things.

Not that any of this has much to do with the original point of this tangent, which was: any combination of deterministic and random processes gives a random result, even if it's within bounds. Randomness doesn't imply boundlessness.
 
Please demonstrate some understanding of our discussion and ask a specific question.
Click to expand...

How about if I simply repeat the original plea issued by Wrath of Swarms? You know, the one you haven't actually answered...

You mentioned materialists/atheists/scientists as a group.

Wrath asked: "please offer the definitions you are using for those concepts and present your arguments for the claims you make."

You proceeded to offer "hypothetical" definitions. You refused justify them or explain them. When show to be in error, you state that your aren't in error, but won't tell us why. Then you end by stating that you are closing the discussion ("most likely").

I find this highly unsatisfactory. Of what use are your arguments if you aren't going to make the slightest attempt to support them?



Or better yet, ask you to justify your assertions of error.
Click to expand...

I thought I did, however I'll be happy to repeat myself.
You definitions are in error because they each assert a requirement for 100% certainty of the non-existence of god. This is unnecessary as none of the definitions require this.
 
Wrath of the Swarm said:
Anyway, even if the equations for lesser worlds could be solved, it would be impossible to prevent influences from within the uber-world itself from altering the lesser ones and making the equations invalid.

That's true if all uber-worlds work like ours, certainly. I would, if they exist, expect that they might, but can we guarantee that? Can we assure that, say, via some force our own universe is blind to, we could not observe perfectly and yet not affect, or even be unable to affect, the outcome in our world? Yes, I realize that violates our universe's conservation principles rather badly

The same principle applies in our world - even if we consider a computer to be a perfectly deterministic system, we can't know with certainty what result it will give to any particular problem because unanticipated interactions with the stuff outside the computer can change things.

No dispute about that.

Not that any of this has much to do with the original point of this tangent, which was: any combination of deterministic and random processes gives a random result, even if it's within bounds. Randomness doesn't imply boundlessness.
Click to expand...
Well, you didn't answer my question about the autoregressive process.

For x(n)=alpha * x(n-1) + (1-alpha) * r(n); r(n) being for this purpose a sigma 1, mu zero guassian process that is exactly white, what happens as alpha -> 1?

I agree that in this universe, I don't ever expect to be able to realize that process. But when, in that limit as alpha goes to 1, does the process become non-random? If ever, that is.

Clearly alpha=1 is a non-random process.

So, I argue that one more wisely speaks of a continuum of randomness, from complete (a white process) to non-random (deterministic), where the two parts can combine. Of course, any non-deterministic component does mean that the two will diverge by some amount, but the divergence does not have to be complete, we can define the process x(t)=sine(wt)+r(t)... The divergence there is limited for all time, even though the total energy of the divergence is not.
 
jj said:
That's true if all uber-worlds work like ours, certainly. I would, if they exist, expect that they might, but can we guarantee that? Can we assure that, say, via some force our own universe is blind to, we could not observe perfectly and yet not affect, or even be unable to affect, the outcome in our world? Yes, I realize that violates our universe's conservation principles rather badly.
Click to expand...
It's not even a matter of conservation principles. If logic holds, the conclusion holds. If logic doesn't hold... well, is it really a world?
 
Wrath of the Swarm said:
It's not even a matter of conservation principles. If logic holds, the conclusion holds. If logic doesn't hold... well, is it really a world? [/B]
Click to expand...

Well, if it's there, and our logic doesn't work, what does that mean? Note the big 'if', I don't think it's there, haven't any evidence otherwise.

There is, though, no reason to assume a-priori that logic must be the same in all universes. There are many sets of self-consistant axioms...
 
Yes, and logic applies to them all.

There's really no need to be concerned - the things that don't follow logic don't exist in any universe. They're in the set of things that don't exist in any other sets. Presumably they're still part of the Totality, of course...
 
Wrath of the Swarm said:
Yes, and logic applies to them all.
Click to expand...

Unh, which kind of logic would that be? Logic is nothing but an abstract algebra, there are many, yes?
 
jj said:
Unh, which kind of logic would that be? Logic is nothing but an abstract algebra, there are many, yes?
Click to expand...
Really... And how do you determine if a particular algebra is valid? What rules do you use to examine them?
 
Wrath of the Swarm said:
Really... And how do you determine if a particular algebra is valid? What rules do you use to examine them?
Click to expand...

That depends on the algebra. There are some really unusual ones out there, and it could always be a 'dragon poker' situation, although of course I doubt that, too.
 
Interesting Ian said:


A rock has no self-awareness?? How did you establish this??
Click to expand...

You need to address the context of the post you've quoted that from (and the other posts I made about defining "life") for me to be able to answer in any meaningful manner.
 
jj,

A question for those who are reading:

What should the word "random" mean? Does it mean "any possibility no matter however slim of a different outcome", or is it a multivalued thing, i.e. there are degrees of randomness, say like Markov Processes, or thereabouts, state machines with probabilistic transitions, etc, that can be expressed as "partially random".
Click to expand...

I would say that the word "random" simply means "not deterministic". Systems which are "partially random", can simply be expressed as a combination of a deterministic and a random system interacting.

What do you think, should we use the word "random" for all of those, and (apparently) not distinguish between the degrees, or should we distinguish between degrees of random behavior from completely random (i.e. no correlation between events, stationary probability of outcome, etc) and completely predictable.
Click to expand...

Of course we should distinguish between degrees. But I would say that a deterministic system is one which can be completely described by some mathematical algorithm.

For instance, if a random process is defined as r(n) where each output from r is gaussian with sigma 1 and mean zero, with all autocorrelations save 0th equal to zero, what do we call this process:

x( n) = alpha * x(n-1) + (1 - alpha) * r(n);

For alpha = each of { 0 .9 1}
Click to expand...

A random system, a deterministic system with a random driving, and a deterministic system. The more general system:

x(n) = alpha * x(n-1) + (1 - alpha) + y(n);

where y(n) is defined to be any input that is not dependant on x(n), is a deterministic system, because its behavior, given any input function y(n), is completely governed by the above algorithm. If the input, y(n), is random, then the output, x(n), is also random (for alpha = 0.9), but the system is a deterministic system being driven by a random input.

Remember that the term "deterministic" refers to a mathematical ideal. The term random does not. Sure, there is a continuum between determinism and a completely unpredictable random process, but the term "random" refers to this entire interval, except for the limit of true determinism. Obviously that does not mean we should ignore the differing degrees of order in random systems, but we have other terms for doing that, such as order, entropy, correlations, etc... We can model such systems as deterministic systems with random inputs, but the overall composite system is still non-deterministic, and thus, by definition, random.

I think that this brings up an important point. Words like "deterministic" and "random", are perfectly well defined for mathematical systems, but don't really mean anything when applied to reality. As has already been mentioned, it is not possible to distinguish between a truly random system, and high-dimensional deterministic chaos. Making such claims about reality just amounts to metaphysical speculation. We can say that a model is deterministic, or that it is random, or that the model is a deterministic system with a random driving. But anything more than that, and we are just playing pretend.


Ian,

Wrath's request for a definition of free-will was directed at Ian and Hammegk, in response to their claim that it exists, and is neither deterministic, nor random (nor any combination thereof).

The first problem being that this is not a definition of what free-will is, but rather what it isn't. The second problem being that under any conventional mathematical definition of "random" and "deterministic", this is self-contradictory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I rather think you need to demonstrate this "contradiction".
Click to expand...

See above. The mathematical definition of "random" is "not deterministic". If, when you say "free-will is neither random nor deterministic", you are using this definition, then your statement is self-contradictory. If you have some other definition in mind, then you need to present it before we can possibly address your claim about free-will.


Dr. Stupid
 
Darat said:


You need to address the context of the post you've quoted that from (and the other posts I made about defining "life") for me to be able to answer in any meaningful manner.
Click to expand...

This whole thread seems to have gone off on a tangent :(
 
Stimpson J. Cat said:
I would say that the word "random" simply means "not deterministic".
Click to expand...

Yes, but who agrees with you? That's a negative definition anyway. Randomness can surely be defined positively.
 
jj said:

There is, though, no reason to assume a-priori that logic must be the same in all universes. There are many sets of self-consistant axioms...
Click to expand...
Isn't it the point that if A does not ensure at 100% certainty ~A, the logic is at best suspect for our "physical" universe?



apoger: Thanks for another demonstration of the futility and sterility of "critical thinking" when used to erect stumbling blocks rather than as a method of further inquiry. Damn semantics.

Does my 100% comment above make any sense to you?



To me, the current discussion of determined vs. random is approaching the free-will problem from a new direction.
 
Ian,

I would say that the word "random" simply means "not deterministic".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, but who agrees with you?
Click to expand...

That is the formal mathematical definition, but that is not relevant. I was asked for my opinion on the matter, and I gave it. That is the only definition for random that I know of. If you have an alternative definition in mind, for which your claim about free-will is not self-contradictory, then please present it.

That's a negative definition anyway.
Click to expand...

That is perfectly fine, because "random" refers to a type of process, and not a specific process. When I say that something is random, I mean only that it is not deterministic. Nothing more, and nothing less.

When you attempt to define a specific process, like free-will, only by saying what it is not, then your definition is ambiguous, because not everything that fits that negative definition is necessarily free-will. But of course, this only matters if your negative definition of free-will is not already self-contradictory. Using the mathematical definitions of deterministic and random, the negative definition you have provided includes only the empty set.

Randomness can surely be defined positively.
Click to expand...

Then do so. Define what you mean by "random". If you cannot do so, then your claim that free-will is not random, is utterly meaningless.


Oh, and just for the record:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Stochastic.html


Dr. Stupid
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom