Taking Down Determinism

[Dancing David]

Since we can study Euclidean geometry in our universe, whatever geometry it has, we have a Pi with a constant value which is independent of causality.

Really now? So you have measured the curvature of the universe?

Wow Bill Thompson 75 you should publish that, it will help the lambda: crunch, rip or stall debate!

 

[Dancing David]

Only for a very specific definition of pi. pi is not, generally, considered to be variable in this way. Nor is it considered to be a purely geometrical constant. There are arithmetical expansions for pi.

pi/2 = 1 + 1/3 + 1/3.2/5 + 1/3.2/5.5/7 ...

This cannot be changed by considering different geometries.

I know, but as stated in some the geometrical defintion is the same as the mathematical... and other it isn't.

 

[AvalonXQ]

But the point is that at least some of those constants are independent of causality and therefore determinism does not hold.

Determinism doesn't require that everything is dependent on causality -- only that everything can be determined from causality.
A physical constant that has no causal relationship with anything is vacuously determinable from causality; in fact it's determinable even without causality.
So, no -- determinism holds, and you haven't shown otherwise.
You fail. Next proof.

 

[AvalonXQ]

You seem incapable of grasping these ideas so I will use another approach.

Consider our universe as an isolated deterministic system.
Suppose that there are other universes.
Suppose that an entity from another universe discovers a way to reach its hand into our universe and cause widespread mayhem on planet Earth.
The effects from this action are not determined by a prior state of our universe, and therefore this action has caused non-deterministic effects to ripple through our universe.

You need to replace "are not determined by" with "cannot be determined knowing". Then you can see how that situation is different from the existence of physical constants, which do not contradict determinism -- because they do not represent anything indeterminable.
Determinism doesn't require that everything has a cause. Determinism merely requires that everything can be determined a priori. Pi can be determined a priori; therefore pi is consistent with determinism.
Why does this escape you?

 

[The Man]

You seem incapable of grasping these ideas so I will use another approach.

Consider our universe as an isolated deterministic system.
Suppose that there are other universes.
Suppose that an entity from another universe discovers a way to reach its hand into our universe and cause widespread mayhem on planet Earth.
The effects from this action are not determined by a prior state of our universe, and therefore this action has caused non-deterministic effects to ripple through our universe.

The value of Pi is equivalent to this hand.

As you seem incapable of actually thinking about your ideas (as opposed to just proclaiming them), I will reiterate. Your supposition of “an entity from another universe” having “a way to reach its hand into our universe” such that it remains non-deterministic already presupposes at least some non-deterministic aspect(s) of our universe.

The effects from this action are not determined by a prior state of our universe, and therefore this action has caused non-deterministic effects to ripple through our universe.

They are “determined by a prior state of our universe” that permits such non-determinisic interaction with some other universe. Without that your “entity from another universe” can not have a non-deterministic “way to reach its hand into our universe”. So you can change as much as you want about your “ideas”, but until you change its a priori assumption(s) that there is some “non- deterministic information” in the universe or some non-deteminisic way for two universes to interact, you will still be begging the question.

 

[The Man]

That is true, but then this is no different from defining a number "œ" that is given by:

œ/2 = 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ...

which happens to correspond, but only in euclidean space, to the length of one side of a right triangle, the other sides of which measure œ -1 and œ +1.

Isn’t that a convergent geometric series?

 

[westprog]

That is true, but then this is no different from defining a number "œ" that is given by:

œ/2 = 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ...

which happens to correspond, but only in euclidean space, to the length of one side of a right triangle, the other sides of which measure œ -1 and œ +1.

That's precisely so. There are an infinitely large number of irrational numbers. pi is just one of them. It's value, however, is entirely deterministic. It's far more deterministic than the actual universe.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Isn’t that a convergent geometric series?

Why, yes it is.

 

[H'ethetheth]

That's precisely so. There are an infinitely large number of irrational numbers. pi is just one of them. It's value, however, is entirely deterministic. It's far more deterministic than the actual universe.

Okay, then I misunderstood your original point. I guess I agree with you.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I'm pretty sure the number he just defined was 4.

 

[westprog]

I know, but as stated in some the geometrical defintion is the same as the mathematical... and other it isn't.

The precise geometrical definition is always the same in all universes. It's a matter of defining the geometry.

 

[westprog]

Okay, then I misunderstood your original point. I guess I agree with you.

Damn!

 

[westprog]

I'm pretty sure the number he just defined was 4.

or 3.9999...

 

[H'ethetheth]

or 3.9999...

Now you're just splitting hairs to an infinite degree.

 

[Robin]

You seem incapable of grasping these ideas so I will use another approach.

Consider our universe as an isolated deterministic system.
Suppose that there are other universes.
Suppose that an entity from another universe discovers a way to reach its hand into our universe and cause widespread mayhem on planet Earth.
The effects from this action are not determined by a prior state of our universe, and therefore this action has caused non-deterministic effects to ripple through our universe.

"caused non-deterministic effects"?

So the mayhem would have been determined non-deterministically?

Or would the entity's actions have caused non-causal effects?

If your premiss is "the effects of X are not determined by Y" then the conclusion "the effects of X are not determined" does not follow.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Hawking doesn't believe in QM?

Quote me the part where he says that the Universe is deterministic.

Hawking doesn't even believe that scientific models reflect reality, only that they predict observations. He says he doesn't even know what reality is.

I would dig out my books if I thought this was relevant to my post, but I will let you do your own homework.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

No. The value of pi simply follows by deduction from the premise that space-time is flat.

All I can say is that this is absolutely wrong.

It is no different than deducing that "Socrates is mortal" from the premises that "all men are mortal" and that "Socrates is a man".

...or is that also non-deterministic?

Deduce the value of Pi with a syllogism.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Really now? So you have measured the curvature of the universe?

Wow Bill Thompson 75 you should publish that, it will help the lambda: crunch, rip or stall debate!

Are you trying to define "non sequitur"?

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Determinism doesn't require that everything is dependent on causality -- only that everything can be determined from causality.
A physical constant that has no causal relationship with anything is vacuously determinable from causality; in fact it's determinable even without causality.
So, no -- determinism holds, and you haven't shown otherwise.
You fail. Next proof.

"A physical constant...it's determinable even without causality"
Exactly, that is why when one enters a state of the universe it is not caused by any state of the universe.
Proof intact.

Determinism, in this thread, is the concept that everything is determined from causality without exception.

 

[Robin]

I would dig out my books if I thought this was relevant to my post, but I will let you do your own homework.

You made the claim that Hawking held a particular view and I challenged you to back it up.

You gave a broad brush cite that this claim is backed up somewhere within the pages of "A Brief History of Time".

I challenge you to be more specific and you give excuses.

I am pretty sure that Hawking does not make that claim anywhere in "A Brief History of Time"

Why did you make the claim in the first place if it was not relevant?