• 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.

Taking Down Determinism

Bill Thompson 75

Graduate Poster
Bill Thompson 75
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
1,437
This is an informal proof that Determinism does not hold sway in our universe.

Determinism is the idea that any state of the universe is causally determined completely by the previous state of the universe.

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.

Premise: Our universe contains non-deterministic information.

There are many instances of non-deterministic information.
One, for example, is Pi, the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter.
The value of Pi is independent of any causality in our universe.
Although the value of Pi can be computed, the value is not caused to be what it is by any calculation. The calculation merely reveals the value.

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

If you look at the 10th digit of Pi and then blink that number of times, then you have performed a non-deterministic action.

Conclusion: Our universe is non-deterministic.
 
Bill Thompson 75 said:
This is an informal proof that Determinism does not hold sway in our universe.

Determinism is the idea that any state of the universe is causally determined completely by the previous state of the universe.

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.

Premise: Our universe contains non-deterministic information.

There are many instances of non-deterministic information.
One, for example, is Pi, the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter.
The value of Pi is independent of any causality in our universe.
Although the value of Pi can be computed, the value is not caused to be what it is by any calculation. The calculation merely reveals the value.

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

If you look at the 10th digit of Pi and then blink that number of times, then you have performed a non-deterministic action.

Conclusion: Our universe is non-deterministic.
Click to expand...


What make you think “Pi is independent of any causality in our universe”? Is it not caused by “the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter” being consistent?

How do you determine that “Determinism does not hold sway in our universe” without at least some, well, determinism to sway you?

So your basic starting premise is that “Our universe contains non-deterministic information”, isn’t that generally determined to be begging the question?
 
Last edited:
Bill Thompson 75 said:
This is an informal proof that Determinism does not hold sway in our universe.

Determinism is the idea that any state of the universe is causally determined completely by the previous state of the universe.

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.
Click to expand...
These are not theorems; these are propositions based on circular reasoning. For example, "Theorem" III is equivalent to the statement that says, A man who is absent is an absent person. Since a theorem must be free of any fallacy to be successfully proved, there is no way you can prove them.

Your theorems are just statements with no argument values and therefore not capable of supporting anything else but themselves.
 
Is a randomly generated number deterministic or non-deterministic?
 
Why does Determinism need to be taken down?

It died around 1928 for some reaons. :)
 
Bill Thompson 75 said:
III. A system that contains non-deterministic action is non-deterministic.
Click to expand...

epix said:
These are not theorems; these are propositions based on circular reasoning. For example, "Theorem" III is equivalent to the statement that says, A man who is absent is an absent person. Since a theorem must be free of any fallacy to be successfully proved, there is no way you can prove them.

Your theorems are just statements with no argument values and therefore not capable of supporting anything else but themselves.
Click to expand...
I agree that his arguments are logically flawed; but not in quite the way that you argue. Your statement that "a man who is absent is an absent person" is not actually an equivalent statement, since your statement involves two identical identities, whereas his statement involves a set and a sub-set of identities.

Take the first part of his statement, "A system that contains non-deterministic action". This statement does not explicitly exclude deterministic action; it could, in fact, be a system that contains both deterministic and non-deterministic action. Nowhere do any of his arguments demonstrate that if some non-deterministic actions exist, therefore no deterministic actions will take place.

Thus, his conclusion that such a system is non-deterministic is fundamentally flawed, hoist upon the petard of his own faulty logic...since if by his definition a universe that can contain non-deterministic actions cannot be deterministic, then logically one must also argue that a universe that can contain determinisitic actions (as must be logically possible in his theoretical universe) cannot be non-deterministic.

The very best conclusion one could reach, if one accepted the proposition that non-deterministic actions take place, would be "In a system that contains non-deterministic action, non-deterministic actions are possible." And, of course, once we do that, we truly do have the entirely circular kind of logic that you were pointing out above.
 
Last edited:
Bill Thompson 75 said:
There are many instances of non-deterministic information.
One, for example, is Pi, the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter.
The value of Pi is independent of any causality in our universe.
Although the value of Pi can be computed, the value is not caused to be what it is by any calculation. The calculation merely reveals the value.

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

If you look at the 10th digit of Pi and then blink that number of times, then you have performed a non-deterministic action.

Conclusion: Our universe is non-deterministic.
Click to expand...


However, the decision to do that, in your mind, might be deterministic. Since pi is fixed, the whole ball of wax remains deterministic.

Is pi truly non-deterministic? Insofar as you pick a digit to blink, you're really just picking a fixed number. Might as well pick from the number 123456789012345... You don't, offhand, know what the 124th of that sequence is, though, like pi, you could calculate a formula for it.
 
Wolfman said:
Take the first part of his statement, "A system that contains non-deterministic action". This statement does not explicitly exclude deterministic action; it could, in fact, be a system that contains both deterministic and non-deterministic action. Nowhere do any of his arguments demonstrate that if some non-deterministic actions exist, therefore no deterministic actions will take place.

Thus, his conclusion that such a system is non-deterministic is fundamentally flawed, hoist upon the petard of his own faulty logic...since if by his definition a universe that can contain non-deterministic actions cannot be deterministic, then logically one must also argue that a universe that can contain determinisitic actions (as must be logically possible in his theoretical universe) cannot be non-deterministic.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but you can have determinism even with non-deterministic (random) inputs. The one can swamp the other.

So, while I may not know when any one particular person will die, I can predict that in 1,000 years, everyone now living will be dead. You can also use determinism to create an envelope of possibilities, circumscribed by statistics. So, while I cannot say precisely what the weather will be a month from now, I can say there will be weather.

I always thought this looser type of determinism fit better than the clock-work type. Do I have to know, in detail, all the steps to decide if something was determined? I don't think I do.
 
Wolfman said:
Thus, his conclusion that such a system is non-deterministic is fundamentally flawed, hoist upon the petard of his own faulty logic...since if by his definition a universe that can contain non-deterministic actions cannot be deterministic, then logically one must also argue that a universe that can contain determinisitic actions (as must be logically possible in his theoretical universe) cannot be non-deterministic.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think that non-deterministic is usually defined as including a mix of both deterministic and non-deterministic actions. Using your definitions, there would have to be three possible states: Deterministic, Non-deterministic and Mixed.
 
Robin said:
Why does Determinism need to be taken down?

It died around 1928 for some reaons. :)
Click to expand...

I was puzzled by this as well. Most of us were born into a world which contained, as far as we could determine, a pure randomising factor. There are people who don't like this for philosophical reasons, but the evidence is that the universe is non-deterministic, end of.
 
Bill Thompson 75 said:
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.
Click to expand...


So, the value of Pi is not caused by the very shape and behavior of the universe? The fact that George Washington was our first President, being information, was not caused by George Washington actually having been our first president?

I don't believe the universe is deterministic, but I don't think your reasoning provides any logical proof of it.
 
Bill Thompson 75 said:
This is an informal proof that Determinism does not hold sway in our universe.

Determinism is the idea that any state of the universe is causally determined completely by the previous state of the universe.

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.

Premise: Our universe contains non-deterministic information.

There are many instances of non-deterministic information.
One, for example, is Pi, the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter.
The value of Pi is independent of any causality in our universe.
Although the value of Pi can be computed, the value is not caused to be what it is by any calculation. The calculation merely reveals the value.

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

If you look at the 10th digit of Pi and then blink that number of times, then you have performed a non-deterministic action.

Conclusion: Our universe is non-deterministic.
Click to expand...

Causal does not equal determined.
 
Dave Rogers said:
How do you generate a number randomly? Pseudorandom number generators are deterministic.

Dave
Click to expand...

Software random generator are fully deterministic.

Hardware RND are a bit different : You take a thermistor , measure the voltage, and take a low significance digits. Or similar.

Anyway anybody attempting to prove a physical property of the universe (determinism) using only mathematic, is really smoking too much pot.

Usually for such demonstration you use QM for example.
 
The Man said:
What make you think “Pi is independent of any causality in our universe”? Is it not caused by “the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter” being consistent?
Click to expand...


No, Pi is not caused by the value of Pi being consistent. That is not causality.

The Man said:
How do you determine that “Determinism does not hold sway in our universe” without at least some, well, determinism to sway you?

So your basic starting premise is that “Our universe contains non-deterministic information”, isn’t that generally determined to be begging the question?
Click to expand...

I explained why the premise is true and the theorems explain why the conclusion is true. That is the opposite of begging the question.
 
Last edited:
epix said:
These are not theorems; these are propositions based on circular reasoning. For example, "Theorem" III is equivalent to the statement that says, A man who is absent is an absent person. Since a theorem must be free of any fallacy to be successfully proved, there is no way you can prove them.

Your theorems are just statements with no argument values and therefore not capable of supporting anything else but themselves.
Click to expand...

A Theorem is a "formula, proposition, or statement in mathematics or logic deduced or to be deduced from other formulas or propositions." www.merriam-webster.com

Your analogy is false. Would you say that "an object which contains sets is itself a set" is circular?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom