Taking Down Determinism

[Robin]

Deduce the value of Pi with a syllogism.

I am not sure how else you could deduce the value of Pi than with a process of symbolic logic.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

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?

Basically, because it's just not true.
Determinism, as defined in this thread (a common definition), does require that everything has a cause.

You are making the very mistake you are claiming I am making.
Pi can be known a priori (through mathematics), but that knowledge does not determine what the value will be.

 

[epix]

There wouldn't be the word "rock" either, but there would still be rocks.

If you think that the mere presence of objects of circular shapes and their orbits in the universe constitutes the presence of ("unspoken") Pi, then you think the same way the literal creationists do.

Btw, the circular shape and orbits of objects such as stars and planets are caused by gravity and

F_g = (G*m₁*m₂)/r²
no Pi in sight.

 

[Robin]

Basically, because it's just not true.
Determinism, as defined in this thread (a common definition), does require that everything has a cause.

You are making the very mistake you are claiming I am making.
Pi can be known a priori (through mathematics), but that knowledge does not determine what the value will be.

You and AvalonXQ are clearly working with different definitions of "Determinism". You should probably sort that out first or else you will talk past each other for pages.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

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.

You are constantly begging the question.
You fundamentally are arguing that nothing can be non-deterministic because everything is deterministic.
I am arguing that a deterministic universe can become non-deterministic.

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.

Your argument here depends on your assertion that actions from one universe can be determined by by another universe prior to contact between the two universes.
No.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

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.

You are unclear. Does a state of the universe determine the value of Pi or does Pi determine a state of the universe?

 

[Robin]

Taking Ed Lorenz's definition of deterministic - "there is only one possible next state", then Determinism would mean that for any state change there is only one possible next state.

I would have thought that this idea was pretty out of date and that we have accepted the likelihood that there is real random behaviour in the Universe.

If you define Determinism as "everything has a cause" then we could ask what is the cause of a single photon, fired at a half silvered mirror, reflecting rather than passing through.

And again, I would have thought that mainstream philosophy, including the philsophy of science, has long accepted that "cause" is not a particularly useful concept.

The traditional conception of cause and effect is one which modern science shows to be fundamentally erroneous, and requiring to be replaced by a quite different notion, that of LAWS OF CHANGE.

Bertrand Russell Analysis of the Mind, Lecture V​

 

[Robin]

If you think that the mere presence of objects of circular shapes and their orbits in the universe constitutes the presence of ("unspoken") Pi, then you think the same way the literal creationists do.

Btw, the circular shape and orbits of objects such as stars and planets are caused by gravity and

F_g = (G*m₁*m₂)/r²
no Pi in sight.

I don't think that is enough to determine the shape of the orbit - where does the direction of the force come in?

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

"caused non-deterministic effects"?

Yes.

So the mayhem would have been determined non-deterministically?

No, it would have been caused non-deterministically. Causation is not equivalent to determinism.

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.

The effects of X (from universe2) are not determined by Y (from a prior state of universe1).
It follows then the effects of X (in universe1) are not determined (in universe1).

 

[Robin]

No, it would have been caused non-deterministically. Causation is not equivalent to determinism.

So what is the difference between "X determines Y" and "X causes Y"?

The effects of X (from universe2) are not determined by Y (from a prior state of universe1).
It follows then the effects of X (in universe1) are not determined (in universe1).

"not determined (in universe1)" is not equivalent to "not determined".

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

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?

"The basic assumption of science is scientific determinism. The laws of science determine the evolution of the universe, given its state at one time." Stephen Hawking

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

If you think that the mere presence of objects of circular shapes and their orbits in the universe constitutes the presence of ("unspoken") Pi, then you think the same way the literal creationists do.

Btw, the circular shape and orbits of objects such as stars and planets are caused by gravity and

F_g = (G*m₁*m₂)/r²
no Pi in sight.

Exactly, Pi is not caused by the shape of the universe.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

I am not sure how else you could deduce the value of Pi than with a process of symbolic logic.

The claim was put forth that Pi can be deduced as a syllogism.

It can be calculated with symbolic logic, if you are placing mathematics within the sphere of symbolic logic.

I cannot imagine how the value could be deduced without math.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

You and AvalonXQ are clearly working with different definitions of "Determinism". You should probably sort that out first or else you will talk past each other for pages.

For AvalonXQ from the OP:
Determinism is the idea that any state of the universe is causally determined completely by the previous state of the universe.

 

[Robin]

"The basic assumption of science is scientific determinism. The laws of science determine the evolution of the universe, given its state at one time." Stephen Hawking

Do you have a source for that - so I can check context. Here is a couple of quotes from an article about determinism from Hawking:

Despite these practical difficulties, scientific determinism, remained the official dogma throughout the 19th century. However, in the 20th century, there have been two developments that show that Laplace's vision, of a complete prediction of the future, can not be realised.

...

To sum up, what I have been talking about, is whether the universe evolves in an arbitrary way, or whether it is deterministic. The classical view, put forward by Laplace, was that the future motion of particles was completely determined, if one knew their positions and speeds at one time. This view had to be modified, when Heisenberg put forward his Uncertainty Principle, which said that one could not know both the position, and the speed, accurately. However, it was still possible to predict one combination of position and speed. But even this limited predictability disappeared, when the effects of black holes were taken into account. The loss of particles and information down black holes meant that the particles that came out were random. One could calculate probabilities, but one could not make any definite predictions. Thus, the future of the universe is not completely determined by the laws of science, and its present state, as Laplace thought. God still has a few tricks up his sleeve.

"Does God Play Dice? Stephen Hawking http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/lectures/64​

Which appears to give the opposite view.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Taking Ed Lorenz's definition of deterministic - "there is only one possible next state", then Determinism would mean that for any state change there is only one possible next state.

I would have thought that this idea was pretty out of date and that we have accepted the likelihood that there is real random behaviour in the Universe.

There are currently active interpretations of quantum mechanics that are deterministic.

And just by reading online forums you will find that the idea of determinism is alive and well.

If you define Determinism as "everything has a cause" then we could ask what is the cause of a single photon, fired at a half silvered mirror, reflecting rather than passing through.

And again, I would have thought that mainstream philosophy, including the philsophy of science, has long accepted that "cause" is not a particularly useful concept.

The traditional conception of cause and effect is one which modern science shows to be fundamentally erroneous, and requiring to be replaced by a quite different notion, that of LAWS OF CHANGE.

Bertrand Russell Analysis of the Mind, Lecture V​

Russell did not abandon the idea of causality, he atempted to reformulate it to make it more useful.

 

[Robin]

For AvalonXQ from the OP:
Determinism is the idea that any state of the universe is causally determined completely by the previous state of the universe.

So, from my above cite, Hawking does not believe this:

Thus, the future of the universe is not completely determined by the laws of science, and its present state, as Laplace thought. - Stephen Hawking​

Is there anyone who believes this now?

Or is "Taking down Determinism" akin to "Taking down Phlogiston"?

 

[Robin]

Russell did not abandon the idea of causality, he attempted to reformulate it to make it more useful.

Really?

"The traditional conception of cause and effect is one which modern science shows to be fundamentally erroneous, and requiring to be replaced by a quite different notion, that of LAWS OF CHANGE. "​

I am not sure how much clearer he could have been about that.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

So what is the difference between "X determines Y" and "X causes Y"?

Determinism implies a sequence of states, each of which is causally determined by the previous state.
"X determines Y" refers to causality from one state to the next.
There can be causation from outside this sequence of states.

"not determined (in universe1)" is not equivalent to "not determined".

It is a clarification necessary to understand my argument.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Do you have a source for that - so I can check context. Here is a couple of quotes from an article about determinism from Hawking:

Despite these practical difficulties, scientific determinism, remained the official dogma throughout the 19th century. However, in the 20th century, there have been two developments that show that Laplace's vision, of a complete prediction of the future, can not be realised.

...

To sum up, what I have been talking about, is whether the universe evolves in an arbitrary way, or whether it is deterministic. The classical view, put forward by Laplace, was that the future motion of particles was completely determined, if one knew their positions and speeds at one time. This view had to be modified, when Heisenberg put forward his Uncertainty Principle, which said that one could not know both the position, and the speed, accurately. However, it was still possible to predict one combination of position and speed. But even this limited predictability disappeared, when the effects of black holes were taken into account. The loss of particles and information down black holes meant that the particles that came out were random. One could calculate probabilities, but one could not make any definite predictions. Thus, the future of the universe is not completely determined by the laws of science, and its present state, as Laplace thought. God still has a few tricks up his sleeve.

"Does God Play Dice? Stephen Hawking http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/lectures/64​

Which appears to give the opposite view.

That particular quote is from an interview:

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article657706.ece