Taking Down Determinism

[Dancing David]

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.

I was merely pointing that on the set of all planes the euclidean plane is a subet. Irregardless of the shape of the universe, therefore the value of pi might vary between the planes.

 

[Nonpareil]

Irregardless

DEATH TO THE GRAMMAR-LESS INFIDELS! i

 

[The Man]

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

So again…

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

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

Well to save time, why don’t you just give us your definition of a cause, particularly in regard to information that you would call deterministic.

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

Again what causes them to be constant? If your don’t know you can just say so.

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.

See, here you go again just begging the question. “information that is not from a state of the totally deterministic universe” presupposes other “non-deterministic” “states”. Also that such “non-deterministic information that is not from a state of the totally deterministic universe” can ‘enter’ “a state of the totally deterministic universe” presupposes at least some non-deterministic means by which such information could enter your “state of the totally deterministic universe”. So once again your claim simply assumes at least some non- deterministic aspects of the universe even before your “non-deterministic information that is not from a state of the totally deterministic universe enters a state of the totally deterministic 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.

So the universe was deterministic before you introduced your “information” and as that “information” “can be the cause of subsequent events in the universe” it can remain deterministic after you introduce your information, so when exactly and for how long does the universe become “non-deterministic”, if it ever does?

No.

Sorry, but without some non- deterministic method for your “non-deterministic information” to ‘enter’ your “state of the totally deterministic universe” the information would simply become deterministic and not the universe becoming non-deterministic. So the universe must already have some non-deterministic aspect in order for your “non-deterministic information” to ‘enter’ and remain, well, “non-deterministic information”

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

Here is your opening post

This is an informal proof that Determinism does not hold sway in our universe.

Determinism is the idea that any state of the universe is causally determined completely by the previous state of the universe.

For brevity, without detailed analysis, here are some theorems I have developed.

I. Information that is independent of causality is non-deterministic.
II. Action that is based on non-deterministic information is non-deterministic.
III. A system that contains non-deterministic action is non-deterministic.

Premise: Our universe contains non-deterministic information.

There are many instances of non-deterministic information.
One, for example, is Pi, the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter.
The value of Pi is independent of any causality in our universe.
Although the value of Pi can be computed, the value is not caused to be what it is by any calculation. The calculation merely reveals the value.

Therefore, any action based upon the value of Pi is independent of deterministic causality.

If you look at the 10th digit of Pi and then blink that number of times, then you have performed a non-deterministic action.

Conclusion: Our universe is non-deterministic.

It makes no mention of…

(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.

Are you having trouble keeping up with what you post and when you post it?

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 no!!! I’m being accused of not being able to “grasp the fundamentals of causality, determinism or logic” and a “lack of comprehension of simple concepts” by someone whose grasp of the fundamentals of causality, determinism and logic (not to mention their comprehension of simple concepts) culminates in their claim (and a purported proof) that the universe becomes non-deterministic when they think about Pi. How degrading.

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.

So you read about Pi in a universe “where it did not exist previously”?

Just how do your determine “it did not exist previously”?

 

[Dancing David]

DEATH TO THE GRAMMAR-LESS INFIDELS! i

Wouldn't that be ungrammerless infidels?

 

[Nonpareil]

DEATH I SAY o

 

[epix]

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

What I meant was to draw a link between the evolution of the universe and the awareness of abstract relationships that include number Pi. If the universe had evolved to different forms that wouldn't allow organic molecules to develop into higher structures, then there would be no brain, and there would be no Pi.

If I can translate your first premise right, the universe doesn't cause number Pi. But the nature of the universe can influence the awareness of number Pi in the mind of certain life forms; the universe needs to transform the way that the distribution and the property of the matter could support and evolve life to its intelligent edition that is able to grasp certain abstract concepts.

 

[epix]

Sorry, but without some non- deterministic method for your “non-deterministic information” to ‘enter’ your “state of the totally deterministic universe” the information would simply become deterministic and not the universe becoming non-deterministic. So the universe must already have some non-deterministic aspect in order for your “non-deterministic information” to ‘enter’ and remain, well, “non-deterministic information”

He doesn't distingush between the "lack of information" and the "loss of information" which is a difference very particular to the concept of determinism on this level.

 

[Foster Zygote]

If the universe had evolved to different forms that wouldn't allow organic molecules to develop into higher structures, then there would be no brain, and there would be no Pi.

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

 

[Robin]

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

Why?

Which philosopher of the 20th and 21st century would defend Determinism or the idea that causality is absolute in the Universe?

Which philosopher claims to have solved Hume's problem of necessary connection?

Certainly not Bertrand Russell who said that the philosophy of science should get away from the idea of causality entirely.

Certainly not A.J. Ayer, Otto Neurath, Moritz Schlick, Rudolf Carnap - who said that any statement that referred to an external reality was meaningless.

Not Quine - I am quite sure. He said that the concept of physical objects was "the most useful myth".

Which scientists? Definitely not Hawking.

Which philosophers and scientists do you have in mind?

What does it even mean to say that causality is absolute in the Universe?

 

[Robin]

Why is causality a metaphyscial subject?

See David Hume's "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding", Section VII, "Of the Idea of Necessary Connexion"

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

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

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

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

I was merely pointing that on the set of all planes the euclidean plane is a subet. Irregardless of the shape of the universe, therefore the value of pi might vary between the planes.

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.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

So again…

Well to save time, why don’t you just give us your definition of a cause, particularly in regard to information that you would call deterministic.

Again what causes them to be constant? If your don’t know you can just say so.

See, here you go again just begging the question. “information that is not from a state of the totally deterministic universe” presupposes other “non-deterministic” “states”. Also that such “non-deterministic information that is not from a state of the totally deterministic universe” can ‘enter’ “a state of the totally deterministic universe” presupposes at least some non-deterministic means by which such information could enter your “state of the totally deterministic universe”. So once again your claim simply assumes at least some non- deterministic aspects of the universe even before your “non-deterministic information that is not from a state of the totally deterministic universe enters a state of the totally deterministic universe”.

So the universe was deterministic before you introduced your “information” and as that “information” “can be the cause of subsequent events in the universe” it can remain deterministic after you introduce your information, so when exactly and for how long does the universe become “non-deterministic”, if it ever does?

Sorry, but without some non- deterministic method for your “non-deterministic information” to ‘enter’ your “state of the totally deterministic universe” the information would simply become deterministic and not the universe becoming non-deterministic. So the universe must already have some non-deterministic aspect in order for your “non-deterministic information” to ‘enter’ and remain, well, “non-deterministic information”

Here is your opening post

It makes no mention of…

Are you having trouble keeping up with what you post and when you post it?

Oh no!!! I’m being accused of not being able to “grasp the fundamentals of causality, determinism or logic” and a “lack of comprehension of simple concepts” by someone whose grasp of the fundamentals of causality, determinism and logic (not to mention their comprehension of simple concepts) culminates in their claim (and a purported proof) that the universe becomes non-deterministic when they think about Pi. How degrading.

So you read about Pi in a universe “where it did not exist previously”?

Just how do your determine “it did not exist previously”?

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.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Why?

Which philosopher of the 20th and 21st century would defend Determinism or the idea that causality is absolute in the Universe?

Which philosopher claims to have solved Hume's problem of necessary connection?

Certainly not Bertrand Russell who said that the philosophy of science should get away from the idea of causality entirely.

Certainly not A.J. Ayer, Otto Neurath, Moritz Schlick, Rudolf Carnap - who said that any statement that referred to an external reality was meaningless.

Not Quine - I am quite sure. He said that the concept of physical objects was "the most useful myth".

Which scientists? Definitely not Hawking.

Which philosophers and scientists do you have in mind?

What does it even mean to say that causality is absolute in the Universe?

Example: If you read A Brief History of Time you will see that Hawking does express a belief that our universe is deterministic.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

He doesn't distingush between the "lack of information" and the "loss of information" which is a difference very particular to the concept of determinism on this level.

I am claiming an "introduction of information" voids determinism.

 

[westprog]

I was merely pointing that on the set of all planes the euclidean plane is a subet. Irregardless of the shape of the universe, therefore the value of pi might vary between the planes.

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.

 

[Robin]

Example: If you read A Brief History of Time you will see that Hawking does express a belief that our universe is deterministic.

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.

 

[H'ethetheth]

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.

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

 

[H'ethetheth]

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.

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.

 

[Dancing David]

DEATH I SAY o

Irdeathless!

Or irregardful?