Taking Down Determinism

[Bill Thompson 75]

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.

Why is causality a metaphyscial subject?
Why are metaphysical subjects outside the scope of proof?

 

[Nonpareil]

Why are metaphysical subjects outside the scope of proof?

How would you prove that we live in the Matrix, assuming that the Matrix is an absolutely perfect simulation? How would you disprove solipsism?

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

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

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.

To simplify:
Mathematicians agree that:
-- Data is organized into sets.
-- There are rules that control the interaction of data within a set.
-- Logic does not apply to those sets.

-- "Set x contains all sets that do not contain themselves. Does set x contain itself?"
This kind of set circularity reasoning brought an end to Hilbert' program to establish a foundation for mathematics.

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.

I see, so if a mathematician does not have the skill to prove a statement, then the statement is 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."

Theorem - a statement that has been established
Assertion - a statement that is to be established

Fairly straight forward.

 

[The Man]

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

I didn't define it to be anything else, I just asked…

So if the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter were not consistent, PI would still have the same value?

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

First you say “That is true” then claim it isn’t? Again Pi is “related to circles” by the given definition, (you sure you just don’t keep forgetting it?) which is again why the question was…

So if the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter were not consistent, PI would still have the same value?

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

Try looking up definitions related to causality that you apparently don’t know even though they were cited before.

A formal cause and a Necessary cause.

Radius. This is one of many equivalent definitions.

So an equal or constant distance from some point that is equated to the sum of the squares of coordinates of all the points along the circles circumference.

Pi is constant in all cases.

So what make Pi “constant in all cases”

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

But your claim rests on the fact that in order for there to be “non-deterministic information” the universe must already be “non-deterministic” to at least some extent.

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.

You introduced it by simply calling it “non-deterministic information” and claiming that it is “independent of causality in the universe”. That is the real problem since if it is “independent of causality in the universe” then the universe can still be deterministic even if your information is not because your “non-deterministic information” is “independent of causality in the universe”. Again the only way your “non-deterministic information” results in a non-deterministic universe is if it results from a non-deterministic (to at least some degree) universe.

I have already explained the different aspects of my claim.

And they are all just begging the question because you have yet to prove any “non-deterministic information” or other spects of the universe.

There is non-deterministic information. (e.g. the value of Pi)

A baseless assertion.

There is a way for non-deterministic information to enter a state of the universe. (calculate the value of Pi)

EDIT: Not unless the universe already has at least some non-deterministic aspects.

If non-deterministic information enters a state of the universe then the universe becomes non-deterministic.

Unless that information which you call “non-deterministic” “is independent of causality in the universe” Which you claim it is so the universe being deterministic will not alter such “independent” “non-deterministic information”

(The status of the universe as deterministic changes to non-deterministic with the introduction of the non-deterministic value of Pi into the universe.)

What kind of nonsense are you trying to pawn off now? So the universe was deterministic, but since you now decided to call Pi a non-deterministic value, suddenly it isn’t?

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

Wow, it seems I’ve underestimated you. You’re not just begging the question, your asking it to rollover and play dead for you as well.


Oh, by all means, please, explain exactly how this ‘Pi effect’ of yours propagates through some currently deterministic, but soon to become “non-deterministic” universe.

What are the conditions for initiating this effect? Does someone have to make a circle or make a pie (being circular and a pie)? Does it have to be perfectly circular or just to some tolerance of your choosing? Does someone have to think about Pi or does it need to be some physical initiating action?

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

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!

In order to disprove the variety of determinism that I have presented I only need to disprove the variety of determinism that I have presented. Any other varieties are irrelevant to my argument.

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!

Saying "this Universe certainly would not allow you and me to prove or disprove either way", which is saying that the universe controls our ability to form proofs, essentially invalidates all arguments. That is humorous and scary.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

How would you prove that we live in the Matrix, assuming that the Matrix is an absolutely perfect simulation? How would you disprove solipsism?

I would pinch myself to find out if I am awake.
Then I would prove that absolute perfection cannot be simulated.
Then I would prove that solipsism is a figment of the imagination

Oh yeah, first, I would start a new thread.

 

[Nonpareil]

I would pinch myself to find out if I am awake.

This would prove it how, exactly? Remember, this is a perfect simulation.

Then I would prove that absolute perfection cannot be simulated.
Then I would prove that solipsism is a figment of the imagination

And you would prove either of these how, exactly?

Oh yeah, first, I would start a new thread.

You might want to do that, then.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

I didn't define it to be anything else, I just asked…

First you say “That is true” then claim it isn’t? Again Pi is “related to circles” by the given definition, (you sure you just don’t keep forgetting it?) which is again why the question was…

So if the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter were not consistent, PI would still have the same value?

If a circle sometimes changes into something else, then Pi would change into something else, also.

Try looking up definitions related to causality that you apparently don’t know even though they were cited before.

Neither the definitions you cite or others I checked would define cause as the relationship between a circle and Pi.

So an equal or constant distance from some point that is equated to the sum of the squares of coordinates of all the points along the circles circumference.

So what make Pi “constant in all cases”

In plane geometry the ratio between a circle's circumference and diameter is constant.

But your claim rests on the fact that in order for there to be “non-deterministic information” the universe must already be “non-deterministic” to at least some extent.

Let me simplify further:
My claim is that once non-deterministic information that is not from a state of the totally deterministic universe enters a state of the totally deterministic universe then the totally deterministic universe becomes not totally deterministic, which is to say it becomes non-deterministic.

You introduced it by simply calling it “non-deterministic information” and claiming that it is “independent of causality in the universe”. That is the real problem since if it is “independent of causality in the universe” then the universe can still be deterministic even if your information is not because your “non-deterministic information” is “independent of causality in the universe”. Again the only way your “non-deterministic information” results in a non-deterministic universe is if it results from a non-deterministic (to at least some degree) universe.

Let me simplify still further:
Non-deterministic information is independent of prior causality in the universe but can be the cause of subsequent events in the universe. When this occurs the deterministic universe becomes non-deterministic.

And they are all just begging the question because you have yet to prove any “non-deterministic information” or other spects of the universe.

A baseless assertion.

EDIT: Not unless the universe already has at least some non-deterministic aspects.

Unless that information which you call “non-deterministic” “is independent of causality in the universe” Which you claim it is so the universe being deterministic will not alter such “independent” “non-deterministic information”

No.

What kind of nonsense are you trying to pawn off now? So the universe was deterministic, but since you now decided to call Pi a non-deterministic value, suddenly it isn’t?

Yeah, that was the opening post. Are you having trouble keeping up?

Wow, it seems I’ve underestimated you. You’re not just begging the question, your asking it to rollover and play dead for you as well.

You clearly either cannot grasp the fundamentals of causality, determinism or logic. Your lack of comprehension of simple concepts could result from any of those.

Oh, by all means, please, explain exactly how this ‘Pi effect’ of yours propagates through some currently deterministic, but soon to become “non-deterministic” universe.

What are the conditions for initiating this effect? Does someone have to make a circle or make a pie (being circular and a pie)? Does it have to be perfectly circular or just to some tolerance of your choosing? Does someone have to think about Pi or does it need to be some physical initiating action?

Read about it, think about it, build a round building, any of these and many more may introduce the value of Pi into a state of the universe where it did not exist previously.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

This would prove it how, exactly? Remember, this is a perfect simulation.

You can still wake up from a perfect simulation.

And you would prove either of these how, exactly?

For example, a perfect simulation would not be distinguishable from reality and therefore it would not be a simulation.
For example, you cannot know that your own mind is not a simulation and if it is then your mind may be its own illusion which results in an infinity of minds within minds and minds without minds, but in any case a great multiplicity of minds.

Read the next response before responding.

You might want to do that, then.

I will, if it ever becomes relevant.

 

[Nonpareil]

You can still wake up from a perfect simulation.

Your evidence for this being...? What definition of "perfect" are you using, exactly? This simulation is entirely indistinguishable for reality.

For example, a perfect simulation would not be distinguishable from reality and therefore it would not be a simulation.

And why not?

For example, you cannot know that your own mind is not a simulation and if it is then your mind may be its own illusion which results in an infinity of minds within minds and minds without minds, but in any case a great multiplicity of minds.

And this disproves solipsism how?

EDIT: But you're right. It is not relevant. If you want to create a new thread, do it, and I'll join in there, but I don't want to derail this one any further.

 

[nimzov]

If a circle sometimes changes into something else, then Pi would change into something else, also.

Pi must be consistent with its non-geometrical definitions :

 

[epix]

I see, so if a mathematician does not have the skill to prove a statement, then the statement is false.



Theorem - a statement that has been established
Assertion - a statement that is to be established

You forgot the Condition Supreme: Theorem - a statement that has been established, providing the mathematician had enough skills to do the establishing.

Proof by assertion is a logical fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction.

Anyway... I want to ask you about this naive path: Only highly organized biochemical structures, such as the human brain, can be aware of relationships such as is the ratio between the circumference and the diameter. Is there any possibility that the evolution of species isn't the cause of a particular evolution of the universe that allows solar systems to form in such a way that some planets could support life?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Only highly organized biochemical structures, such as the human brain, can be aware of relationships such as is the ratio between the circumference and the diameter. Is there any possibility that the evolution of species isn't the cause of a particular evolution of the universe that allows solar systems to form in such a way that some planets could support life?

You're asking if the evolution of life causes the conditions that allow the evolution of life?

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Pi must be consistent with its non-geometrical definitions :

[qimg]http://googolplex.net/temp/euler.gif[/qimg]

As I said, Pi, the ratio of circumference to diameter, would change into something else. Let's call that Ip.

Now Pi does not equal Ip and your consistency argument does not apply.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

You forgot the Condition Supreme: Theorem - a statement that has been established, providing the mathematician had enough skills to do the establishing.

How is a statement established when the mathematician does not have enough skills to do the establishing?

Anyway... I want to ask you about this naive path: Only highly organized biochemical structures, such as the human brain, can be aware of relationships such as is the ratio between the circumference and the diameter. Is there any possibility that the evolution of species isn't the cause of a particular evolution of the universe that allows solar systems to form in such a way that some planets could support life?

It's almost a certainty that the evolution of a species is not the cause of that, unless the species is divine in nature.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Assumptions don't cause geometrical constants.

The assumptions don't cause them. The constants are necessarily implicit in the assumptions; assuming certain things causes you to find a certain value for pi.

Whatever logic and axioms you choose or whatever definition you use for a circle the value of Pi remains constant and independent of the system.

I don't think so. If we assume a curved space, we get a different value for π.
Take the surface of a sphere, where the value of π varies between 0 and 4 depending on the size of the radius relative to the radius of curvature of the space.

** ETA: I see you are aware of the latter part of my reply, so you can disregard that.

 

[westprog]

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?

Math(s) is great, but it's also independent of the shape of the Universe. Define a saddle shaped plane in a flat universe, or a flat plane in a curved universe - and everything works just the same.

Euclid and Pythagoras were working on the surface of a sphere, but that doesn't change geometry.

 

[nimzov]

As I said, Pi, the ratio of circumference to diameter, would change into something else. Let's call that Ip.

Now Pi does not equal Ip and your consistency argument does not apply.

What I wanted to point out is that "numerical Pi" as illustrated above and the "geometrical Pi (ratio for circles)" is the same only if we deal with plane eucledian geometry.

In fact this is a definition of a "flat" region of the universe: i.e. where numerical Pi equals geometrical Pi.

 

[AvalonXQ]

For any meaningful definition of "determinism", both a "deterministic" or a "non-deterministic" universe may have the same property of physical and mathematical constants.
Therefore Bill's proof fails to say anything meaningful about determinism.
/thread

 

[Dancing David]

Why is causality a metaphyscial subject?
Why are metaphysical subjects outside the scope of proof?

Because you can't tell them from each other? BIVs, butterfly dreams, idealism, materialism are all equivalent.