Taking Down Determinism

[CurtC]

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.

That hardware RNG would also be consistent with determinism. In a deterministic universe, there would still be small-scale fluctuations of temperature which could be completely calculated ahead of time.

Count me among those who don't understand why Bill is trying to prove non-determinism. It's a known fact and has been for a long time.

Also, any approach that says that the value of pi is non-deterministic, needs to define terms better.

 

[The Man]

And stop me if I'm wrong, but isn't pi an abstract description of something, not a "something" in and of itself? Can I hold a ring? Yes.... Can I hold the pi of the ring? I don't think so....

To some extent, yes, as it is the relation of the abstract concept of a line (the diameter) to the abstract concept of a circle (specifically its circumference). However, technically you do hold PI (even if just in a abstract sense) when you hold the ring as the ring has that proportionality, giving it that shape.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I. Information that is independent of causality is non-deterministic.

This is incorrect. Any information that can be determined is deterministic.
If your definition of "a non-deterministic universe" is "any universe that has generalized mathematically quantizable facts", then your definition is useless, as everyone will agree that this universe is "a non-deterministic universe" by your useless definition.
I could also define "a non-deterministic universe" as "a universe that has blueberry pie", and get a similarly useless result from my useless definition.

 

[AvalonXQ]

In fact, upon re-consideration, I'm not sure that "information" can be thought of as "deterministic" or not. I think we need to save "deterministic" to refer to events and nothing else.
An event is "deterministic" if the occurance and results of the event could in theory be determined prior to the event occuring.
Information is "deterministic" if you like to use meaningless nonsense in setting up your definitions. Personally, my information is "lovingly stern" and "cobalt blue" instead.

 

[The Man]

In fact, upon re-consideration, I'm not sure that "information" can be thought of as "deterministic" or not. I think we need to save "deterministic" to refer to events and nothing else.
An event is "deterministic" if the occurance and results of the event could in theory be determined prior to the event occuring.
Information is "deterministic" if you like to use meaningless nonsense in setting up your definitions. Personally, my information is "lovingly stern" and "cobalt blue" instead.

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.

 

[wuschel]

Count me among those who don't understand why Bill is trying to prove non-determinism. It's a known fact and has been for a long time.

Except that it's not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism

Trying to disprove Superdeterminism is likely to end up as Argument From Ignorance, one way or the other.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Quantum physics, anyone?

 

[epix]

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

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?

 

[epix]

In fact, upon re-consideration, I'm not sure that "information" can be thought of as "deterministic" or not. I think we need to save "deterministic" to refer to events and nothing else.
An event is "deterministic" if the occurance and results of the event could in theory be determined prior to the event occuring.
Information is "deterministic" if you like to use meaningless nonsense in setting up your definitions. Personally, my information is "lovingly stern" and "cobalt blue" instead.

In other words, you can use Pi to describe a case of causality but not vice-versa, coz 2Pi only informs you about the "shape" of the centrifugal force that determines the degree of circular reasoning.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

That's a wrong analogy on your part. A set is not a proposition -- it's just data particularly organized. A circular fallacy applies to logical constructs, such as the theorem.

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

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

Anyway . . . Your theorems are false unless you prove otherwise. Since the only "active part" in them is the word "non-deterministic," I wish you good luck with the proof.

Third, you claim that a statement not proven is false.

You are 0-3.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

In which case Determinism died 200 years earlier, in the 18th century, with David Hume.

You sure would get a lot of argument from many physicists and philosophers of the 20th and 21st centuries.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Personally, I can't see how a series of actions that inevitably always produces the same result can be sensibly described as non-deterministic.

Dave

If by inevitable you mean deterministic then no that wouldn't make sense, it would be begging the question.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

So it is caused by assuming plane geometry then; it is implied by the chosen rules of logic and the chosen axioms.

Assumptions don't cause geometrical constants.
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.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Some is and some isn't, it is unknown is QM is deterministic (in that sense) or just causal in some unknown fashion.

Absolutes only exist in philosophy.

I am using a very common version of determinism as I have previously defined.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

I was thinking along similar lines... especially in saddle shaped geometries.

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

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Then you should read a bit about modern physics. The random nature of quantum events is pretty well established for nearly a century.

You should read a bit more. You will find that some physicists separate random events from the non/deterministic nature of the universe.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

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

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

As a circle is defined as a collection of points all satisfying the equation R²= x² + y². Technically a circle (thus its circumference and PI) is the result of the radius being constant in that equation. A formal cause and a Necessary cause.

As others have noted it is a result of the chosen rules and definitions, one of which being the definition of a circle equating the coordinates of the points along its circumference to its radius.

Here is another definition: a circle is a set of points in a plane equidistant from a given point in the same plane. In this case Pi is constant.

Your premise contains your conclusion, that there are non-deterministic aspects of our universe. That is exactly begging the question.

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.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

That hardware RNG would also be consistent with determinism. In a deterministic universe, there would still be small-scale fluctuations of temperature which could be completely calculated ahead of time.

Count me among those who don't understand why Bill is trying to prove non-determinism.

Maybe it's the same reason that there are hundreds of proofs of the Pythagorean Theorem.

It's a known fact and has been for a long time.

The very many who consider it to be a known falsehood would disagree.

Also, any approach that says that the value of pi is non-deterministic, needs to define terms better.

My definitions were very specific.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

This is incorrect. Any information that can be determined is deterministic.

Some information can be known which is not caused.
If you presume it is determined then it is deterministic.
If it is not caused by a state of the universe it is not deterministic.

If your definition of "a non-deterministic universe" is "any universe that has generalized mathematically quantizable facts", then your definition is useless, as everyone will agree that this universe is "a non-deterministic universe" by your useless definition.

Since I did not make that definition this whole statement is irrelevant.

I could also define "a non-deterministic universe" as "a universe that has blueberry pie", and get a similarly useless result from my useless definition.

Go for it.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

In fact, upon re-consideration, I'm not sure that "information" can be thought of as "deterministic" or not. I think we need to save "deterministic" to refer to events and nothing else.

I explicitly defined what I meant by non-deterministic information and by inference deterministic information is information that is caused to be created within a state of the universe.

An event is "deterministic" if the occurance and results of the event could in theory be determined prior to the event occuring.

How could the results of an event be determined prior to an event? Are you reversing the arrow of causation?

Information is "deterministic" if you like to use meaningless nonsense in setting up your definitions. Personally, my information is "lovingly stern" and "cobalt blue" instead.

I claim that my nonsense is not meaningless.