Taking Down Determinism

[Bill Thompson 75]

However, information is a critical part of the determination of some resulting event form the previous conditions and the knowledge of both those pervious conditions and how they will (or may) deterministically evolve is information. So I don’t think you can entirely separate information from determinism, particularly if your goal is to determine some outcome based on the information you currently have.

Again it comes down to circular arguments, some information can only be non-deterministic if the universe has non-deterministic aspects. So the assertion of non-deterministic information asserts that there must be at least some non-deterministic aspects of the universe.

I am asserting exactly the opposite. There is information, which I call non-deterministic, that is independent of causality in the universe. And because of this the universe as a whole must be considered non-deterministic.

 

[wollery]

The value of pi is determined by the geometry of the Universe.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

The value of pi is determined by the geometry of the Universe.

No it is not. Even if the geometry of our universe is not flat, a circle in plane geometry still has a unique, constant, and calculatable value.

The geometry of our universe is not a settled issue, but the value of Pi has not changed for quite a while.

 

[wollery]

No it is not. Even if the geometry of our universe is not flat, a circle in plane geometry still has a unique, constant, and calculatable value.

The geometry of our universe is not a settled issue, but the value of Pi has not changed for quite a while.

Define plane geometry.

It would be different in a different geometry, i.e. in a different universe.

 

[Twiler]

No it is not. Even if the geometry of our universe is not flat, a circle in plane geometry still has a unique, constant, and calculatable value.

The geometry of our universe is not a settled issue, but the value of Pi has not changed for quite a while.

Given that everything in mathematics is interdependent, wouldn't changing Pi necessitate everything else changing?

 

[wuschel]

Quantum physics, anyone?

Using QM in order to prove non-determinism is begging the question, because any such argument would necessarily have to be based on assumed non-determinism as one of its premises.

The wiki link in my post right above yours should make this clear.

To the OP: In an Universe - which you are a part of - that works in fully deterministic ways and which renders you - as a part of it - unable to discover its fully deterministic inner workings, this Universe certainly would not allow you and me to prove or disprove either way.

If you cannot know if you're living in such an Universe, how can you know that you're not?

This, or Libertarian Free Will (whatever that is)

 

[Robin]

Define plane geometry.

It would be different in a different geometry, i.e. in a different universe.

I would have to go with Bill Thomson on this one.

In a different universe, all the mathematics that PI is based on will still return the same results.

In another universe they might have a different value that was the ratio of the circumference to the diameter based on empirical measurements, but the mathematics behind it would be completely different.

The plane geometry we use is a cross-product of reals. In a universe where the measured ratio of the circumference to the diamater was different, we would not describe a circle on a cross product of reals.

 

[Aepervius]

Wushel , the things is, superdeterminism as your wiki link present it is more like a philosophical stuff than anything else. It does not provide any prediction, is basically unprovable. I could as well have a theory on supertheism with god push the QM result one way or another for his big plan, and have the same result as superdeterminism.

 

[The Man]

Well, you wouldn't have a circle, so Pi may vary depending upon what Pi represents.

Have you forgotten your own definition for Pi?

One, for example, is Pi, the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter.

So Pi can not vary unless the “the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter” varies.

Are you now claiming that both the value and consistency of Pi is caused by how we define a circle?

Here is another definition: a circle is a set of points in a plane equidistant from a given point in the same plane.

Just what do you think the R is in the equation R²= x² + y²?

In this case Pi is constant.

What makes Pi constant “In this case”?

Maybe this is simpler:
Since our universe contains non-deterministic information the universe as a whole is non-deterministic. Now you can see that it is not circular.

Maybe it is simpler, but it certainly doesn’t address the problem. It is still begging the question, claiming that our “universe contains non-deterministic information” requires it to have at least some non-deterministic aspects.

I am asserting exactly the opposite.

“exactly the opposite” really? So you’re asserting that because the universe is deterministic it has “non- deterministic information”?

Just reversing the order doesn’t always make something an “opposite”, particularly when the ordering is not relevant. As in the case of the universe being non-deterministic because it has information that is independent of causality or the universe has information that is independent of causality because it is non- deterministic. One leads to and is required by the other, so it makes no difference what direction you want to going around that circle.

There is information, which I call non-deterministic, that is independent of causality in the universe. And because of this the universe as a whole must be considered non-deterministic.

Once again you are begging the question by asserting “There is information, which I call non-deterministic, that is independent of causality in the universe” as that requires at least some non-deterministic aspect to the universe, which is your conclusion.

Perhaps some suggestions might help.

1) ‘If the universe contains some information that is independent of causality then the universe must have at least some non-deterministic aspect(s).’
or

2) ‘If the universe has some non-deterministic aspect(s) then in must contain at least some information that is independent of causality.’


You will note that nether of these examples explicitly nor implicitly asserts that the universe does in fact have “information that is independent of causality” or “at least some non-deterministic aspect (s)” it simply relates such assertion each other. Please give it a try yourself and I understand it may be difficult when you consider it a forgone conclusion. However, simply making the assertion of your conclusion as already valid an explicit or implicit part of the basic assertion you should be trying to prove is simply begging the question.

 

[The Man]

I'll be doomed silly if this is not . . . The Man!
Hey, great to see you. Where did you hear about this coup? You know, Joe Packo said that something was about to go down in Social Issues & Current Events. He said that the insurgents could pay well, and you know that PI always holds in Forex.

Great shot, btw. What? Oh, you aimed at the circle?

Hey epix, we always seem to meet in the strangest places. I need to spend more time on the humor threads.

Anyway, thanks for reminding me I needs some new games, what one is that by the way.


Perhaps I should start a thread.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6373525#post6373525

 

[wuschel]

Wushel , the things is, superdeterminism as your wiki link present it is more like a philosophical stuff than anything else. It does not provide any prediction, is basically unprovable.

Emphasis mine. May I humbly point out in which particular sub forum we are?

And yes: I agree that this entire matter of determinism vs. non-determinism is basically a metaphysical subject, and as such not provable one way or the other. My previous post was an attempt at pointing that out, BTW.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Define plane geometry.

It would be different in a different geometry, i.e. in a different universe.

Plane geometry is the study of geometric configurations in a plane, which is a surface of infinite extent that contains the whole of a straight line drawn through any two points in the surface. (Dictionary of Mathematics, Millington & Millington, 1971)

Geometers do not define plane geometry as dependent upon the geometry of any universe. Even physicists who speculate that our universe is not flat do not try to alter the value of Pi.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Given that everything in mathematics is interdependent, wouldn't changing Pi necessitate everything else changing?

Yes, circles would no longer be circular.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Using QM in order to prove non-determinism is begging the question, because any such argument would necessarily have to be based on assumed non-determinism as one of its premises.

The wiki link in my post right above yours should make this clear.

To the OP: In an Universe - which you are a part of - that works in fully deterministic ways and which renders you - as a part of it - unable to discover its fully deterministic inner workings, this Universe certainly would not allow you and me to prove or disprove either way.

Talking about begging the question!

The other part about the universe preventing someone from proving something I presume is a joke. But it's not funny enough to laugh at.

If you cannot know if you're living in such an Universe, how can you know that you're not?

This, or Libertarian Free Will (whatever that is)

 

[epix]

First, you completely confused a set with a statement about sets.

Your sentence construction didn't give me the chance to think otherwise.

Second, you just made the claim that a set is not a logical construct.

I'm not the only one. Mathematicians agree that {a, b, c} is a set of particularly organized data. But when the data start to interact, then they become subject to certain rules. (See the Set Theory). The assembly of various sets is not a matter of reasoning; it is a matter of incidence, so a set that contains itself got obviously nothing to do with circular reasoning.

Third, you claim that a statement not proven is false.You are 0-3.

Well, statements of this nature can be either True or False. If you fail to prove that the series of prime numbers is finite, then your statement about this particular property of the primes that you proposed must be False.

"Third, you claim that a statement not proven is false. You are 0-3."

Now I'm 0-3 even without you proving that I'm wrong. You can "prove" anything you want this way, but be aware of the difference between "theorem" and "assertion."

 

[epix]

Hey epix, we always seem to meet in the strangest places. I need to spend more time on the humor threads.

You are more than welcome to stick around. Have you ever heard this one?

...any action based upon the value of Pi...

http://www.google.com/search?source...ZAZ_enUS333US333&q=action+based+upon+value+pi

Is humor the casualty of uniqueness? Or causality?
Reminds me the Battle of Doronville.

 

[wuschel]

The other part about the universe preventing someone from proving something I presume is a joke. But it's not funny enough to laugh at.

I'm not saying that this is the way it is.
I'm saying that - in order to disprove determinism - you have to disprove each and every single variety of it, including this one.
I do not think this is even possible - but it was you who made that claim!

It doesn't matter if you think that my argument is a joke, because "sounding weird", "funny", "not funny enough"... does not, by itself, invalidate an argument.
So: yeah, I want this argument addressed by you!

 

[Dancing David]

This does not affect the value of Pi in plane geometry.

It does if the plane is saddle shaped, it depends on the axioms of the plane. If you assume that all planes have the 'flat' characteristic then your statement is true.
Non-Euclidean geometry^WP

So if by 'plane geometry' you mean the defintion to be 'Euclidean plane geometery' then the statement is true.

Isn't math great?

 

[Twiler]

Yes, circles would no longer be circular.

Do you mean 'circular' to us, or 'circular' in relation to circles?

In other words, do you mean that a different geometry would exist, or that geometry would become a nonsense?

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Have you forgotten your own definition for Pi?

No, but if you define Pi to be something else it doesn't apply to my argument.

So Pi can not vary unless the “the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter” varies.

That is true, but if the ratio varies then Pi is no longer anything related to circles.

Are you now claiming that both the value and consistency of Pi is caused by how we define a circle?

There is no causation, by any definition of causation I know, between the definition of a circle and the value of Pi.

Just what do you think the R is in the equation R²= x² + y²?

Radius. This is one of many equivalent definitions.

What makes Pi constant “In this case”?

Pi is constant in all cases.

Maybe it is simpler, but it certainly doesn’t address the problem. It is still begging the question, claiming that our “universe contains non-deterministic information” requires it to have at least some non-deterministic aspects.

My claim is that once non-deterministic information enters a state of the universe then the universe becomes non-deterministic.

“exactly the opposite” really? So you’re asserting that because the universe is deterministic it has “non- deterministic information”?

Just reversing the order doesn’t always make something an “opposite”, particularly when the ordering is not relevant. As in the case of the universe being non-deterministic because it has information that is independent of causality or the universe has information that is independent of causality because it is non- deterministic. One leads to and is required by the other, so it makes no difference what direction you want to going around that circle.

Once again you are begging the question by asserting “There is information, which I call non-deterministic, that is independent of causality in the universe” as that requires at least some non-deterministic aspect to the universe, which is your conclusion.

The universe becomes non-deterministic because non-deterministic information is introduced into it. This is not begging the question, it is asserting the consequence of an event.

Perhaps some suggestions might help.

1) ‘If the universe contains some information that is independent of causality then the universe must have at least some non-deterministic aspect(s).’
or

2) ‘If the universe has some non-deterministic aspect(s) then in must contain at least some information that is independent of causality.’

You will note that nether of these examples explicitly nor implicitly asserts that the universe does in fact have “information that is independent of causality” or “at least some non-deterministic aspect (s)” it simply relates such assertion each other. Please give it a try yourself and I understand it may be difficult when you consider it a forgone conclusion. However, simply making the assertion of your conclusion as already valid an explicit or implicit part of the basic assertion you should be trying to prove is simply begging the question.

I have already explained the different aspects of my claim.

There is non-deterministic information. (e.g. the value of Pi)
There is a way for non-deterministic information to enter a state of the universe. (calculate the value of Pi)
If non-deterministic information enters a state of the universe then the universe becomes non-deterministic. (The status of the universe as deterministic changes to non-deterministic with the introduction of the non-deterministic value of Pi into the universe.)

Therefore, as soon as the value of Pi has an effect upon the universe, the universe becomes non-deterministic.